Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

A strongly lensed galaxy at z~11-12 is resolved into multiple star-cluster-like clumps that hold most of its stellar mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:35 UTC pith:VL4FEK6I

load-bearing objection A solid, honest discovery of a z~11-12 lensed clumpy galaxy, but the quoted 10-70 pc clump radii rest on a size correction that ignores anisotropic magnification; worth a serious referee, though the size analysis needs fixing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.14483 v3 pith:VL4FEK6I submitted 2025-11-18 astro-ph.GA

VENUS: A Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy at zsim11-12 behind the Galaxy Cluster MACS J0257.1-2325

Minami Nakane , Vasily Kokorev , Seiji Fujimoto , Masami Ouchi , Derek J. McLeod , Miriam Golubchik , Masamune Oguri , Adi Zitrin
show 70 more authors
Cecilia Bondestam Callum T. Donnan Gabriel Brammer Steven L. Finkelstein Chris Willott Gregor Rihtarsic Guillaume Desprez Angela Adamo Eros Vanzella Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c} Matteo Messa Hiroto Yanagisawa Fengwu Sun Henry C. Ferguson Ray A. Lucas Dan Coe Johan Richard Abdurro'uf Hollis B. Akins Joseph F. V. Allingham Ricardo O. Amor\'in Yoshihisa Asada Hakim Atek Rachel Bezanson Larry D. Bradley John Chisholm Christopher J. Conselice Pratika Dayal Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky Jose M. Diego Andreas L. Faisst Gavin Farley Qinyue Fei Brenda L. Frye Yoshinobu Fudamoto Lukas J. Furtak Yuichi Harikane Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao Yolanda Jim\'enez-Teja Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Tomokazu Kiyota Anton M. Koekemoer Claudia del P. Lagos Georgios E. Magdis Ashish Kumar Meena Lamiya Mowla Ga\"el Noirot Pascal A. Oesch Yoshiaki Ono Rafael Ortiz III Richard Pan Casey Papovich Justin D. Pierel Massimo Ricotti Luke Robbins Daniel Schaerer Raffaella Schneider Tommaso Treu Francesco Valentino Rogier A. Windhorst Franz E. Bauer Volker Bromm Eiichi Egami Mauro Gonz\'alez-Otero Kotaro Kohno Ivo Labbe Jorryt Matthee Marcie Mun Rohan P. Naidu Roberta Tripodi
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesstrong gravitational lensingstar clustersgalaxy formationJWSTNIRCamz~11-12compact clumps
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports a strongly lensed galaxy at z~11-12, named the Misty Moons, seen behind the cluster MACS J0257.1-2325. Gravitational magnification of ~20-30 resolves this intrinsically faint galaxy (M_UV ~ -18) into multiple stellar clumps with effective radii of 10-70 pc and stellar masses near 10^7 solar masses. These clumps account for more than 80% of the galaxy's stellar mass, a clustered mass fraction far above local dwarf galaxies, implying that star formation at this early epoch is clump-dominated. When the source-plane image is smeared by the NIRCam point-spread function, the galaxy looks like typical faint z>10 galaxies, suggesting that clumpy substructure may be common but unresolved in unlensed observations.

Core claim

The Misty Moons, a lensed galaxy at z~11-12, is resolved into four compact clumps in one image and three in the other, with intrinsic sizes of ~10-70 pc and stellar masses of ~10^7 solar masses each. The clumps dominate the stellar mass budget, contributing more than 80% of the total mass. The galaxy's intrinsic half-light radius (~180-200 pc) and UV luminosity (~-18 mag) place it among typical faint z>10 galaxies, and a mock PSF-convolved image matches the surface-brightness profiles of two well-known z~13 galaxies. The paper concludes that a clumpy, clustered mode of star formation is present in this early galaxy and may be representative of faint galaxies in the reionization era.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is strong gravitational lensing by the foreground cluster, which magnifies the background galaxy by a factor of 20-30 and boosts both brightness and spatial resolution. Source-plane reconstruction, driven by a parametric lens model, converts the distorted image-plane morphologies into intrinsic clump positions and sizes. Clump identification uses contrast-map source extraction followed by multi-component Sersic profile fitting; intrinsic sizes are obtained by dividing image-plane radii by the square root of the magnification. A mock-image step, convolving the reconstructed source with the NIRCam PSF, tests how the galaxy would appear unlensed.

Load-bearing premise

The physical conclusions assume that the image-plane clumps are real source-plane structures and that the parametric lens model correctly recovers the magnification and source-plane geometry.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift placing the galaxy at z<9, or an independent lens model yielding magnification factors differing by more than a factor of two from the adopted values, would invalidate the derived clump masses, radii, and mass fractions.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If star formation is indeed clump-dominated at z>10, stellar mass builds up in dense sub-galactic units rather than in a smooth disk.
  • The observed clump properties bridge high-redshift star-forming clumps and local young massive or nuclear star clusters, possibly tracing globular-cluster progenitors.
  • The PSF-smearing test implies that many apparently smooth faint z>10 galaxies may hide similar clumpy substructure.
  • The high clustered mass fraction, compared with local dwarfs, supports a top-down, clustered star formation mode in the early Universe.
  • Confirming the three predicted counter-images would further validate the lens model and sharpen the derived clump properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the lens model holds, the derived clump densities (up to ~10^4 solar masses per square parsec) rival the densest known star clusters, which would push star-formation models toward a top-heavy IMF or very high cluster formation efficiencies.
  • The paper's 'representative' conclusion rests on a single sightline; a fair test would search for similar lensed clumpy galaxies in other cluster fields and compare their clump mass fractions.
  • A direct testable extension: high-resolution integral-field spectroscopy of the clumps could measure velocity dispersions and decide whether they are gravitationally bound clusters or transient giant clumps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of 'Misty Moons,' a strongly lensed galaxy at z~11–12 behind the cluster MACS J0257.1-2325, identified in VENUS JWST/NIRCam imaging. Two highly magnified images, ID1 and ID2, show F150W dropouts, blue UV slopes, and consistent photometric redshifts from EAZY and Prospector (z~11 with IGM absorption, z~12 with Lyα emission; P(z>10)~1). Two independent lens models predict five multiple images, with the fainter ID4/ID5 predicted at F200W~29 and not detected — an out-of-sample consistency check. After lens modeling, the galaxy is claimed to be resolved into multiple clumps with intrinsic effective radii ~10–70 pc, stellar masses ~1e7 M_sun, and clustered mass fractions ≳80%, and a PSF-convolved mock image is argued to resemble typical z>10 JADES galaxies.

Significance. If the quantitative clump properties are correct, this is an important discovery: it would push resolved studies of star-cluster-scale structures from z~6–9 to z~11–12 and provide a direct constraint on clustered star formation in the early Universe. The paper has genuine strengths: the high-redshift nature of the source is robust; two independent lens models are used; the non-detection of ID4/ID5 is a falsifiable prediction; ID1/ID2 provide an internal consistency check; and Monte Carlo uncertainties are propagated for fluxes. However, the headline numbers for clump sizes, surface densities, and mass fractions depend on a size correction and a source-plane reconstruction that are not currently validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and Table 2] The intrinsic radii are obtained as r_eff,int = r_eff / sqrt(μ_Glafic). This is valid only for isotropic magnification. Near a cluster critical curve the lensing tensor is anisotropic: for a GALFIT major-axis r_eff the image-plane radius scales as μ_t R_s while μ = μ_t μ_r, so the quoted r_eff,int overestimates the true radius by sqrt(μ_t/μ_r), or biases it differently if another radius convention is used. The paper does not state whether r_eff is the GALFIT semi-major-axis or a circularized radius, does not report clump axis ratios, and does not quote local magnification eigenvalues. The 10–70 pc radii, the derived Σ* and ΣSFR values, and the Fig. 6 comparisons to NSCs/YMCs all rest on this unverified scalar correction. Please redo the size analysis with source-plane forward modeling or with the magnification tensor at each clump, and check both lens models.
  2. [§4 and Fig. 5] The clump sizes are close to the NIRCam resolution limit. At z~11.5, the 0.03 arcsec pixel corresponds to ~70 pc, and the image-plane r_eff values in Table 2 are 83–347 pc (≈1–5 pixels); the compact clumps A.1/A.2 are near the PSF FWHM. Measuring Sérsic radii at this scale requires accurate PSF subtraction/deconvolution, but no injection-recovery test of the GALFIT fitting is presented. I request such tests — fitting PSF-convolved models with known radii, including pixelation and PSF mismatch — before the exact 10–70 pc range is used in the discussion.
  3. [§4 and §5.2] The source-plane reconstruction is shown for ID1 and ID2, and the text states their morphologies are 'highly similar.' This is a qualitative statement, and the same Glafic model is used to produce both source planes. A quantitative comparison of clump positions, fluxes, and radii between ID1 and ID2, plus an independent source-plane reconstruction with the Zitrin-Analytic model, would test whether the clump decomposition and the derived ≳80% clustered mass fraction are robust rather than partly a consequence of the chosen lens model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] 'Balamer break/jump' should read 'Balmer break/jump.'
  2. [§5.1] 'log M*,int = 4.5 +2.7 −1.7 × 10^7 M⊙' is malformed; it should be written as M* = (4.5^{+2.7}_{−1.7}) × 10^7 M⊙.
  3. [Table 2] State explicitly whether r_eff is the GALFIT major-axis effective radius and define any circularization. As written the quantity is ambiguous, which matters for the size-correction discussion.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] 'galxies' should be 'galaxies.'
  5. [§5.2] 'In gathered sample at all redshift' should be 'In the gathered sample at all redshifts.'
  6. [§4] The clump identification uses a Gaussian smoothing kernel of σ=6 pixel; a sentence justifying this choice and showing the dependence of the clump list on the smoothing scale would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the lensing, photometric, and SED analyses are measured quantities with out-of-sample checks; the size correction is a model-dependent transformation, not a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on measured photometry, SED fitting, and lens modeling, not on a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The photometric redshifts (z~11-12) are derived from EAZY and Prospector fits to observed fluxes, and the lens models are constrained by multiple image systems including ID1 and ID2; the predicted ID4/ID5 magnitudes (F200W~29) are an out-of-sample check that matches non-detection. The intrinsic clump sizes are obtained by the standard transformation reff,int = reff / sqrt(mu_Glafic), which is an assumption about the magnification tensor rather than a definitional identity that makes the 'prediction' equal to the input. The paper explicitly notes that source-plane morphologies of ID1 and ID2 are 'highly similar', but this is a consistency check, not a circular reduction. Citations to Glafic, Zitrin-Analytic, and prior high-z clump studies are methodology or comparative references, not load-bearing self-citations used to force a conclusion. The mock NIRCam image comparison with JADES galaxies is a forward-modeling exercise from the reconstructed source plane, not a retrodiction of the same fitted values. Any concerns about the validity of the sqrt(mu) size correction are scientific caveats about lens-model assumptions, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central physical claims (delensed clump radii, masses, mass fractions) depend on a chain of chosen parameters: lens-model magnification, fixed photometric redshift, clump-detection thresholds, Sérsic n=1, and SPS assumptions. None of these are fitted to the final conclusions directly, but they are not externally pinned down either.

free parameters (5)
  • Lensing magnification μ (ID1/ID2) = μ_ID1 ≈ 28–31, μ_ID2 ≈ 21–35 (Glafic and Zitrin-Analytic models)
    Delensed radii, masses, SFR surface densities, and absolute magnitudes are all divided by this model-derived factor; it is not directly measured for this source and has systematic uncertainty between models.
  • Misty Moons redshift for lens model and clump SED fitting = z = 12 (Zitrin model); z = 11.5 (fixed clump SED fitting); phot-z 11.1–12.4
    The paper sets or fixes the redshift rather than measuring it spectroscopically; the lens model and clump SED fits use these values.
  • Clump detection threshold and smoothing scale = S/N = 2; Gaussian σ = 6 pixels
    Chosen by hand; these control how many clumps are found and therefore the clustered mass fraction.
  • Sérsic index n for clumps = n = 1 (fixed)
    GALFIT clump radii and fluxes assume n=1 for all individual clumps with separate diffuse light; a different n changes reff and fluxes.
  • Lens model structural parameters = e.g., dark matter halo positions, NFW/dPIE/PIEMD parameters, external shear in Glafic
    These are fitted to multiple-image positions in the cluster and determine the magnifications and source-plane geometry; their uncertainties propagate to all delensed quantities.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Standard flat ΛCDM cosmology with ΩΛ=0.7, Ωm=0.3, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Adopted in §1; all distances, luminosities, and masses depend on it.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (BPASS/FSPS with MIST isochrones, MILES library; Bruzual & Charlot in Bagpipes) and Chabrier IMF correctly describe high-z stellar populations
    SED fitting with Prospector/Bagpipes converts photometry into stellar masses, ages, and SFRs; these calibrations are not directly validated at z~11-12.
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation laws (Charlot & Fall; Calzetti) and IGM/CGM absorption models (Madau; Asada et al.) are appropriate at z~11-12
    Used in §2.3 and §4; the redshift solution depends on whether Lyα emission is included or IGM absorption assumed.
  • domain assumption Parametric lens models (dPIE/PIEMD member galaxies + NFW or PIEMD dark halos, optional external shear) represent the cluster mass distribution
    §3.1-3.2; both models are parametric and may share systematic biases; magnification estimates rely on profile choices.
  • domain assumption The five predicted images are all of the same background source; ID1/ID2 colors and morphologies correspond to the same intrinsic clumps
    §3-4; if ID1 and ID2 are not the same source, the source-plane reconstruction and multiplicity claims fail.
  • domain assumption Clump SEDs fitted at fixed z=11.5 with a dynamic SFH prior represent the same age/metallicity population
    §4; clump ages, masses, and mass fractions depend on these priors.
  • domain assumption Local comparison samples (Norris, Adamo, Cook, etc.) and CFE/Σ_SFR relations from the literature are comparable to high-z clumps
    §5.2; differences could be due to selection effects or evolutionary mass loss not modeled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28065 in / 15179 out tokens · 152573 ms · 2026-08-03T21:35:48.225357+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of a strongly lensed galaxy at $z\sim11-12$, dubbed the ``Misty Moons'', identified in the JWST Treasury Survey, Vast Exploration for Nascent, Unexplored Sources (VENUS). The Misty Moons is gravitationally lensed by the galaxy cluster MACS J0257.1-2325 at $z=0.505$, and has five multiple images suggested by two independent lensing models. Two of the five images, ID1 and ID2 ($\mu\sim 20-30$), are very bright (F200W$\sim26$ AB mag) and exhibit blue SEDs with prominent Ly$\alpha$ breaks. In the source plane, the Misty Moons is a sub-$L^*$ galaxy ($M_{\rm UV}\sim-18.0$ mag) resolved into multiple stellar clumps, each of which has an effective radius of $r_\mathrm{eff}\sim 10-70$ pc and a stellar mass of $\sim10^7\ M_\odot$. These clumps dominate the stellar mass budget of the Misty Moons ($\gtrsim80\%$), similar to other high-$z$ clumps, which suggests a highly clustered mode of star formation in the early Universe, unlike seen in local dwarf galaxies. We convolve the source-plane image with the JWST/NIRCam point-spread function to produce a mock NIRCam image of the Misty Moons without lensing magnification, and find that the intrinsic galaxy has a radial surface-brightness profile comparable to those of $z\gtrsim10$ faint galaxies, such as JADES-GS-z13-0 and JADES-GS-z14-1, indicating that the Misty Moons represents a typical $z\gtrsim10$ faint galaxy. The Misty Moons, a lensed galaxy with resolved internal structures, provides an ideal laboratory for exploring the early stages of galaxy formation at $z\gtrsim10$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.14483 by Abdurro'uf, Adi Zitrin, Andreas L. Faisst, Angela Adamo, Anton M. Koekemoer, Ashish Kumar Meena, Brenda L. Frye, Callum T. Donnan, Casey Papovich, Cecilia Bondestam, Christopher J. Conselice, Chris Willott, Claudia del P. Lagos, Dan Coe, Daniel Schaerer, Derek J. McLeod, Eiichi Egami, Eros Vanzella, Fengwu Sun, Francesco Valentino, Franz E. Bauer, Gabriel Brammer, Ga\"el Noirot, Gavin Farley, Georgios E. Magdis, Gregor Rihtarsic, Guillaume Desprez, Hakim Atek, Henry C. Ferguson, Hiroto Yanagisawa, Hollis B. Akins, Ivo Labbe, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Johan Richard, John Chisholm, Jorryt Matthee, Jose M. Diego, Joseph F. V. Allingham, Justin D. Pierel, Kotaro Kohno, Lamiya Mowla, Larry D. Bradley, Lukas J. Furtak, Luke Robbins, Marcie Mun, Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c}, Masami Ouchi, Masamune Oguri, Massimo Ricotti, Matteo Messa, Mauro Gonz\'alez-Otero, Minami Nakane, Miriam Golubchik, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Pascal A. Oesch, Pratika Dayal, Qinyue Fei, Rachel Bezanson, Rafael Ortiz III, Raffaella Schneider, Ray A. Lucas, Ricardo O. Amor\'in, Richard Pan, Roberta Tripodi, Rogier A. Windhorst, Rohan P. Naidu, Seiji Fujimoto, Steven L. Finkelstein, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Tommaso Treu, Tomokazu Kiyota, Vasily Kokorev, Volker Bromm, Yolanda Jim\'enez-Teja, Yoshiaki Ono, Yoshihisa Asada, Yoshinobu Fudamoto, Yuichi Harikane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NIRCam color image (R: F356W+F444W, G: F200W+F277W, B: F115W+F150W) of the MACS J0257.1-2325 cluster field. The white curve indicates the critical curve at z = 11 − 12. The white squares show the positions of ID1-ID5 of the Misty Moons predicted by our independent lensing models while the colored circles denote the z ∼ 1 − 8 multiple images used to constrain the lensing models (see Section 3). The 3′′ ×3 ′… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: JWST + HST images and SED fitting results for the entire systems of ID1 (top) and ID2 (bottom) of the Misty Moons. The upper panels show the 1. ′′5 × 1. ′′5 cutout images of 13 filters (F435W, F555W, F814W, F090W, F115W, F150W, F200W, F210M, F277W, F300M, F356W, F410M, and F444W). The lower left and right panels present the results from EAZY and Prospector fitting, respectively. The black circles indicate … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Absolute UV magnitude as a function of redshift. The red filled circles and squares indicate ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12), respectively. The magenta filled circles represent highly magnified galaxies of the Cos￾mic Gems arc (zspec = 9.63; Adamo et al. 2024; Bradley et al. 2024; Messa et al. 2025b) and BulletArc-z11 (zspec = 11.10; Bradaˇc et al. 2025). The small filled symbols show the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection images (F200W + F277W + F356W + 444W) of ID1 and ID2 in the image plane (left) and source plane (right). The white lines indicate the isophotal regions where the entire systems and individual clumps are detected. the redshift of the Misty Moons to be z = 12 2 , and system 1 to z = 1.09 and leave the redshifts of the other systems to be optimized by the model. The lens model is constructed using t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Clump modeling results for ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons system. From left to right, the 1. ′′5×1. ′′5 cutout images, best-fit model images, and residual images divided by the 1σ error maps are presented. Misty Moons, the model predicts three more images at RA,Dec : (44.28487483, −23.43738994), (44.28650147, −23.43596856), (44.28569941, −23.42626713). The cal￾culated magnifications for ID1 and ID2 are 31+… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Physical properties of individual clumps. Left: stellar mass and size relation. The star symbols indicate the entire systems while the circles are individual clumps. The red, blue, green, orange, brown, and purple symbols show the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12; This work), BulletArc-z11 (zspec11.10; Bradaˇc et al. 2025), Cosmic Gems arc (zspec = 9.63; Adamo et al. 2024; Bradley et al. 2024; Messa et al. 202… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the appearance of faint galaxies with and without lensing magnification. The leftmost panel presents the source plane image for ID1 of the Misty Moons. The second panel shows the mock image convolved with the NIRCam PSF. The third and rightmost figures represent the image of faint galaxies, GS-z13-0 (zspec = 13.20; Curtis-Lake et al. 2023) and GS-z14-1 (zspec = 13.90; Carniani et al. 2024). W… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: mass fraction in clustered stellar systems as a function of stellar mass. The red star symbols indicate ID1 and ID2 of the Misty Moons (zphot ∼ 11 − 12). The blue, green, purple, and magenta star symbols show the BulletArc-z11 (zspec = 11.10; Bradaˇc et al. 2025), Cosmic Gems arc (zspec = 9.63; Adamo et al. 2024; Bradley et al. 2024; Messa et al. 2025b; Vanzella et al. 2025), Cosmic Grapes (zspec = 6… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Gas-Phase Metallicity and Nitrogen Abundances in Low-Mass Galaxies Down to $M_\star\simeq10^{5.7}\,M_\odot$ at $z\simeq4.5$--$10.1$ from JWST Lensing Cluster Surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    JWST lensing-cluster spectra push the z~6 mass–metallicity relation to M*~10^6.6 Msun and reveal a UV-vs-optical nitrogen discrepancy suggesting local nitrogen enhancement, possibly from Wolf-Rayet stars.

  2. Lyman-alpha Radiation Pressure in Dense Star Clusters: Implications for Star Formation and Winds at Cosmic Dawn

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Lyα radiation pressure mildly reduces gas-to-star conversion efficiency in dense high-redshift clusters while dominating the launch of rapid outflows.

  3. Cosmic CORALS: Timing the Universe with high-z star clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Star clusters at z=9.6 combined with local globular cluster ages give H0=70(+27,-16) km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.33(+0.37,-0.21), with a forecast that ~300 clusters could reach 4% precision.

  4. Strong Gravitational Lensing with the James Webb Space Telescope

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Strong gravitational lensing paired with JWST enables magnified high-resolution views of distant sources and improved constraints on dark matter.

  5. Strong Gravitational Lensing with the James Webb Space Telescope

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review summarizing recent advances in strong gravitational lensing applications and near-future prospects with the James Webb Space Telescope.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19377.x

    Adamo, A., ¨Ostlin, G., & Zackrisson, E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1904, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19377.x

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Adamo, A., Zeidler, P., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 69, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  4. [4]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1134, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02624-5 2025

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Asada, Y., Desprez, G., Willott, C. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc388 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc388 2025

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    M., Windhorst, R

    Berkheimer, J. M., Windhorst, R. A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.03883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.03883

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.03883 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7 Bradaˇ c, M., Strait, V., Mowla, L., et al

    Boyett, K., Trenti, M., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02218-7 Bradaˇ c, M., Strait, V., Mowla, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e73 Bradaˇ c, M., Judeˇ z, J., Willott, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20446

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20446 2024

  9. [9]

    2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14889440 2025

  10. [10]

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

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acecfe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acecfe 2023

  11. [11]

    D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Adamo, A., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10770

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10770 2024

  12. [12]

    2023a, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146904 —

    Brammer, G. 2023a, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146904 —. 2023b, grizli, 1.9.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8370018

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1146904

  13. [13]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  14. [14]

    Brown, G., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2907

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2907 2021

  15. [15]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 Calabr` o, A., Daddi, E., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935778

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  17. [17]

    C., et al

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

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  18. [18]

    C., Sabbi, E., et al

    Calzetti, D., Lee, J. C., Sabbi, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/51

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/51 2015

  19. [19]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  20. [20]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  21. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 2024

  22. [22]

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

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  23. [23]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  24. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  25. [25]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf058 2025

  26. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b

    Coe, D., Salmon, B., Bradaˇ c, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab412b 2019

  27. [27]

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  28. [28]

    2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183, doi: 10.1086/377318

    doi:10.1086/377318 2003

  29. [29]

    O., Lee, J

    Cook, D. O., Lee, J. C., Adamo, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3748

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3748 2023

  30. [30]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w 2023

  31. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1338

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1338 2013

  33. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112 Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy atz∼11−12 17 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., & Adamo, A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112 Strongly Lensed Clumpy Galaxy atz∼11−12 17 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348636

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly112 2018

  34. [34]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 El ´ ıasd´ ottir,´A., Limousin, M., Richard, J., et al. 2007, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0710.5636, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0710.5636

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0710.5636 2017

  35. [35]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed45

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed45 2018

  36. [36]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1857 2024

  37. [37]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  38. [38]

    R., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 2024

  39. [39]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w 2025

  40. [40]

    J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1627

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1627 2023

  41. [41]

    J., Zitrin, A., Richard, J., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Richard, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1943

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1943 2024

  42. [42]

    Garcia, F. A. B., Ricottai, M., Sugimura, K., & Park, J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1092

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1092 2023

  43. [43]

    Garcia, F. A. B., Ricotti, M., & Sugimura, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 146, doi: 10.33232/001c.145064

    doi:10.33232/001c.145064 2025

  44. [45]

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

    Hainline, K. N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8447

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8447 2024

  45. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e 2024

  46. [47]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023

  47. [48]

    K., Ellis, R

    Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2c 2025

  48. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  49. [50]

    E., Reina-Campos, M., Koekemoer, A

    Harris, W. E., Reina-Campos, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dc 2025

  50. [51]

    Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Coe, D., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b 2023

  51. [52]

    Y.-Y., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Abdurro’uf, Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 2024

  52. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  53. [54]

    2023a, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

  54. [55]

    2023b, ApJ, 959, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 959, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be

  55. [56]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056

    Isobe, Y., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056 2025

  56. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505

    Ji, X., Belokurov, V., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.12505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.12505 2025

  57. [58]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  58. [59]

    C., Seth, A

    Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 33, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/33

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/33 2016

  59. [60]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4 2024

  60. [61]

    Keeton, C. R. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0102341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0102341 2001

  61. [62]

    C., & Evans, N

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  62. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03156

    Kiyota, T., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03156

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03156 2025

  63. [64]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    Kokorev, V., Brammer, G., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909 2022

  64. [65]

    2025a, ApJL, 983, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc458

    Kokorev, V., Atek, H., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 983, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc458

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc458 2041

  65. [66]

    A., Taylor, A

    Kokorev, V., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 988, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade8f5 2041

  66. [67]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    doi:10.1086/190669 1980

  67. [68]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3008, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x

    arXiv 2012

  68. [69]

    J., Richard, J., Ebeling, H., et al

    Lagattuta, D. J., Richard, J., Ebeling, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad803

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad803 2023

  69. [70]

    L., Hutchison, T

    Larson, R. L., Hutchison, T. A., Bagley, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfed4 2023

  70. [71]

    2008, A&A, 489, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809646

    Limousin, M., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809646

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809646 2008

  71. [72]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18, doi: 10.1086/175332

    doi:10.1086/175332 1995

  72. [73]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 2024

  73. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1971

    Marconcini, C., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1971

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1971 2024

  74. [75]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9931

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Boone, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9931

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9931 2017

  75. [76]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfe

    Adamo, A. 2025, ApJL, 981, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfe

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adadfe 2025

  76. [77]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3471 2024

  77. [78]

    K., & Bagla, J

    Meena, A. K., & Bagla, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3632

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3632 2020

  78. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2403

    Messa, M., Adamo, A., ¨Ostlin, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2403

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2403 2018

  79. [80]

    2025a, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 18Nakane et al

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2025a, A&A, 694, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451695 18Nakane et al. —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18705, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18705

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.18705

  80. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404 2024

Showing first 80 references.