arxiv: 2604.23823 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A GLIMPSE of the 99%: a census of the faintest galaxies during the epoch reionization and its implications for galaxy formation models

Hakim Atek , Iryna Chemerynska , Lukas J. Furtak , Johan Richard , John Chisholm , Vasily Kokorev , Michelle Jecmen , Damien Korber , Ryan Endsley , Richard Pan , Arghyadeep Basu , Jeremy Blaizot , Rychard Bouwens , Meriam Ezziati , Sylvain Heurtier , Kristen. B. W. McQuinn , Marcie Mun , Julian B. Munoz , Pascal Oesch , Joakim Rosdahl , Alberto Saldana-Lopez , Seiji Fujimoto

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords UV luminosity functionepoch of reionizationfaint galaxiesJWST observationsgravitational lensingionizing emissivitygalaxy formation models

0 comments

The pith

Faint galaxies at z~7 keep the UV luminosity function rising steeply to M_UV=-12.3 with no turnover.

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

The paper uses deep JWST observations from the GLIMPSE survey and gravitational lensing to measure the galaxy UV luminosity function at redshifts 6 to 9, reaching three magnitudes fainter than prior limits. At z approximately 7 the function shows a steep faint-end slope of roughly -2 and continues rising without flattening or turnover down to absolute magnitude -12.3. This result directly constrains galaxy formation models that predict an early cutoff from radiative feedback or star-formation thresholds. The same data yield an ionizing emissivity high enough for faint galaxies to drive reionization even when the intergalactic medium is significantly clumped.

Core claim

The z ~ 7 UVLF continues to rise steeply with a faint-end slope of α = -1.98_{-0.05}^{+0.06} with no clear evidence of a turnover down to M_UV = -12.3. This persistence of the faint population constrains galaxy formation models and cosmological simulations that predict early flattening. The derived comoving ionizing emissivity at z=7 is log(n_ion / s^{-1} Mpc^{-3}) ≈ 50.85, sufficient to maintain reionization even for a clumping factor C_HII = 5. Post-JWST models calibrated to the UV-bright excess at z > 10 generally fail to reproduce the observed evolution toward lower redshifts and fainter magnitudes.

What carries the argument

The end-to-end lensing magnification model with statistical and systematic uncertainties, applied to GLIMPSE JWST fields to construct the UV luminosity function and completeness corrections down to M_UV = -12.3.

If this is right

Galaxy formation models must allow continued star formation in low-mass systems without early flattening from feedback at these faint luminosities.
Models calibrated only to the bright excess at z > 10 cannot simultaneously match the faint-end evolution observed at z ~ 7.
Faint galaxies supply the dominant share of ionizing photons at z=7, sufficient for reionization even with high IGM clumping.
A luminosity-function truncation at M_UV >= -15 is ruled out, requiring either better characterization of low-mass galaxy ionizing properties or revised IGM clumping models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Reionization calculations may need higher average escape fractions from the low-mass galaxy population than many current models assume.
Wider or deeper lensed fields could test whether the steep slope persists below M_UV = -13, tightening the required photon budget.
The mismatch with post-JWST models points to missing physics in how star-formation efficiency evolves in small halos across the reionization epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational lensing magnification estimates, completeness corrections, and assumed ionizing photon production efficiency plus escape fraction for faint galaxies are accurate enough not to artificially create the steep slope or remove a turnover.

What would settle it

A deeper independent survey or refined lensing model that detects a clear flattening or turnover in the UVLF below M_UV = -12.3 would falsify the no-turnover result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23823 by Alberto Saldana-Lopez, Arghyadeep Basu, Damien Korber, Hakim Atek, Iryna Chemerynska, Jeremy Blaizot, Joakim Rosdahl, Johan Richard, John Chisholm, Julian B. Munoz, Kristen. B. W. McQuinn, Lukas J. Furtak, Marcie Mun, Meriam Ezziati, Michelle Jecmen, Pascal Oesch, Richard Pan, Ryan Endsley, Rychard Bouwens, Seiji Fujimoto, Sylvain Heurtier, Vasily Kokorev.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: — The redshift density distribution of the full sample normalized to unity. The distribution accounts for photometric redshift uncertainties through an MC sampling of the errors. The error bars show the dispersion in each redshift bin. While the wavelength location of the Lyman break shapes the edges of the redshift distribution, the lower number of galaxies along the high−z tail is mainly due to the appar… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: — The absolute magnitude distribution of the galaxy sample at 6 < z < 9. The top panel shows the distribution for the NIRCam module centered on the lensing cluster, while the bottom panel is for the entire field of view. The blue histogram represents the observed magnitude, while the orange histogram shows the intrinsic (de-lensed) magnitude. lensing and weak-lensing constraints. Similarly to the first m… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: — The 2D completeness map of the galaxy selection procedure as a function of both the intrinsic absolute magnitude MUV and the redshift (see Section 5.1 for details) view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: — Survey volume characterization for the AS1063 cluster field based on three independent lensing mass models: Furtak et al. (in prep) Beauchesne et al. (2024) and (Richard et al. 2014b) Left panel: Cumulative effective source plane area (arcmin2 ) as a function of magnification (µ, expressed in magnitudes) for the three mass models. The differences in area highlight the systematic variations in the predict… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: — The UV luminosity function at z ∼ 7. The present determinations are shown by purple points, while literature points from Bouwens et al. (2021) are denoted by gray circles. The purple curve shows 1 − σ confidence interval of the best-fit Schechter function to the combined data points. The blue, red, and green curves show literature best-fit LFs from Bouwens et al. (2022a), (Atek et al. 2018), and (Ishiga… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: — The rest-frame UVLF at z ≈ 7 derived using three independent gravitational lensing mass models to evaluate systematic uncertainties (see Section 4). The data points and corresponding Schechter function fits represent results based on the mass modeling of Furtak et al. (in prep) Beauchesne et al. (2024) and (Richard et al. 2014b). Each model derivation self-consistently incorporates lensing-related corr… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: — Same as view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: — Constraints on the galaxy formation models from the faint-end of the UV luminosity function at z ∼ 7. In both panels, the purple-shaded region represents our results compared to theoretical predictions. Left panel: Comparison with cosmological hydrodynamical simulations at similar redshifts: CROC (Gnedin 2016), DRAGONS (Liu et al. 2016), ENZO (O’Shea et al. 2015), Sphinx (Rosdahl et al. 2018), CoDa (Oc… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: — Same as view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The derived values are also presented in view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: — Evolution of the comoving ionizing photon emissivity rate density, log10( ˙nion/s−1Mpc−3 ), as a function of redshift z in the range 5 < z < 12. The purple data point represents the results from this work, compared against various observational constraints and theoretical models, including the Glimpse model (purple line), Gaikwad et al. (2023) (blue shaded region), Bouwens et al. (2015) (hatched blue r… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: — Cosmic reionization histories and CMB optical depth constraints. Bottom panel: The evolution of the volumeweighted hydrogen neutral fraction xHI as a function of redshift. Data points with error bars represent various literature constraints from Lyα emitters (LAEs) and QSO absorption wings (Fan et al. 2006; Sobacchi & Mesinger 2015; Greig & Mesinger 2017; Ba˜nados et al. 2018; Davies et al. 2018; Mason… view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: — The rest-frame UV luminosity function at z ∼ 7 derived from the Glimpse survey. The colored data points represent the individual realizations from the MCMC sampling, color-coded by their posterior density to illustrate the range of possible UVLF solutions. This distribution accounts for both statistical uncertainties and systematic errors arising from the choice of various lensing models. The shaded b… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of the galaxy UV luminosity function (UVLF) at $z=6-9$ leveraging deep JWST observations from the GLIMPSE survey. Thanks to gravitational lensing, we probe the UVLF to an unprecedented depth of $M_{\text{UV}} = -12$ mag, approximately three magnitudes deeper than previous robust constraints. Our UVLF determination incorporates a rigorous end-to-end uncertainty framework, including statistical and systematic lensing uncertainties. We find that the $z \sim 7$ UVLF continues to rise steeply with a faint-end slope of $\alpha = -1.98_{-0.05}^{+0.06}$. Crucially, our data show no clear evidence of a turnover down to \muv $= -12.3$. The persistence of this faint population provides stringent constraints on galaxy formation models and cosmological simulations that predict an early flattening of the luminosity function due to radiative feedback or star-formation thresholds. Furthermore, post-JWST models specifically calibrated to match the UV-bright excess at $z > 10$ generally fail to reproduce the observed evolution toward lower redshifts and fainter magnitudes, highlighting a significant tension in our current understanding of early galaxy assembly. We derive a comoving ionizing emissivity at $z=7$ of log($n_{\mathrm ion}$ / s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$) $\approx 50.85$, which suggests that faint galaxies dominate the ionizing budget, providing enough photons to maintain reionization even in a highly clumped IGM ($C_{\text{HII}} = 5$). As our detection of faint galaxies effectively rules out a luminosity function truncation at $M_{\text{UV}} \geq -15$, these results emphasize the need to either accurately characterize the ionizing properties of the global, low-mass galaxy population at $z > 6$, or to refine physical models of intergalactic medium clumping and its redshift evolution to maintain consistency with the observed reionization timeline.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

GLIMPSE reaches three magnitudes fainter in the z~7 UVLF than prior work and reports no turnover, but the steep slope and reionization claim rest on lensing and completeness corrections that the abstract does not fully demonstrate.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper uses lensed JWST fields from GLIMPSE to push the UV luminosity function at z=6-9 down to M_UV around -12, finding a faint-end slope near -2 at z=7 with no flattening evident to -12.3. That result, if solid, directly increases the estimated ionizing output from the faint population and creates tension with models that predict an early cutoff from feedback or star-formation thresholds. The derived log n_ion of 50.85 at z=7 follows from integrating that LF under fixed assumptions for photon production and escape fraction, and the authors note it can sustain reionization even in a clumpy IGM. They also flag that post-JWST simulations tuned to brighter high-z populations struggle to match the faint-end behavior at lower redshifts. What stands out is the depth and the explicit inclusion of lensing systematics in the uncertainty budget, which is an improvement over many earlier LF papers. The work is aimed at modelers of early galaxy assembly and reionization who need tighter constraints on the faint end. The soft spot is the reliance on the end-to-end magnification model and completeness corrections at the highest magnifications. If those systematically overestimate densities at the faintest bins, the no-turnover conclusion and the emissivity value could shift. The abstract describes a rigorous framework but does not show quantitative robustness checks against alternate lens models or luminosity-dependent changes in ionizing efficiency, so those steps will need close examination. This deserves peer review because the depth is new and the implications are concrete, even if revisions on the systematics are likely.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a UV luminosity function (UVLF) measurement at z=6-9 from the GLIMPSE JWST survey, exploiting gravitational lensing to reach M_UV=-12 (three magnitudes fainter than prior robust limits). It reports a steep faint-end slope α=-1.98_{-0.05}^{+0.06} at z~7 with no evidence of turnover to M_UV=-12.3, derives log(n_ion)≈50.85 at z=7, and concludes that faint galaxies dominate the ionizing photon budget even for C_HII=5 while ruling out LF truncations at M_UV≥-15 and highlighting tensions with post-JWST galaxy formation models.

Significance. If the central measurements hold, the result supplies strong constraints on galaxy formation models and simulations that predict early LF flattening from radiative feedback or star-formation thresholds, and it exposes inconsistencies with models tuned to the z>10 UV-bright excess. The high ionizing emissivity supports the dominance of faint galaxies in reionization, with direct implications for IGM clumping factors and the reionization timeline. The explicit inclusion of statistical and systematic lensing uncertainties in the error budget is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The steep slope α=-1.98 and absence of turnover to M_UV=-12.3 rest on the end-to-end lensing magnification model, source completeness, and volume corrections being unbiased at the highest magnifications. The text describes a rigorous uncertainty framework but supplies neither quantitative robustness tests against alternative lens models nor explicit checks for post-hoc selections, leaving open the possibility that the inferred number densities at the faint end are artificially inflated.
[Abstract] Abstract (ionizing emissivity paragraph): The derived log(n_ion)≈50.85 is obtained by integrating the fitted LF under fixed assumptions for the ionizing photon production efficiency ξ_ion and escape fraction f_esc in the faint population. These parameters are not demonstrated to be independently constrained outside the LF fit itself, creating a circularity risk for the claim that faint galaxies dominate the ionizing budget and suffice for reionization at C_HII=5.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The notation “μv = -12.3” is evidently a typesetting error for M_UV; this should be corrected for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be clarified and strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The steep slope α=-1.98 and absence of turnover to M_UV=-12.3 rest on the end-to-end lensing magnification model, source completeness, and volume corrections being unbiased at the highest magnifications. The text describes a rigorous uncertainty framework but supplies neither quantitative robustness tests against alternative lens models nor explicit checks for post-hoc selections, leaving open the possibility that the inferred number densities at the faint end are artificially inflated.

Authors: We agree that additional explicit robustness checks would strengthen the presentation. While our end-to-end framework already propagates statistical and systematic lensing uncertainties (including magnification map variations) into the final error budget, we will add a dedicated subsection with quantitative tests. This will include re-deriving the UVLF using two independent alternative lens models from the literature, recomputing completeness and volume corrections, and verifying that the faint-end slope and lack of turnover remain consistent within uncertainties. We will also include explicit checks for post-hoc selection effects by repeating the analysis with varied magnitude and color cuts. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (ionizing emissivity paragraph): The derived log(n_ion)≈50.85 is obtained by integrating the fitted LF under fixed assumptions for the ionizing photon production efficiency ξ_ion and escape fraction f_esc in the faint population. These parameters are not demonstrated to be independently constrained outside the LF fit itself, creating a circularity risk for the claim that faint galaxies dominate the ionizing budget and suffice for reionization at C_HII=5.

Authors: We clarify that ξ_ion and f_esc are not fitted from the LF data but are instead adopted as fixed fiducial values drawn from independent observational constraints in the literature (e.g., recent JWST-based measurements of ξ_ion at z>6 and f_esc estimates from Lyman-continuum studies). The LF itself is measured independently of these parameters. To address the concern directly, we will revise the text to (i) explicitly state the literature sources and ranges used, (ii) show the integrated n_ion for a conservative grid of lower ξ_ion and f_esc values, and (iii) demonstrate that the conclusion that faint galaxies can sustain reionization at C_HII=5 holds even under these more pessimistic assumptions. This removes any appearance of circularity while preserving the core result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in UVLF measurement or reionization calculation

full rationale

The central result is an observational determination of the UVLF at z=6-9 from JWST lensed fields, with the faint-end slope obtained by fitting binned number densities after applying lensing magnification, completeness, and volume corrections. These corrections are standard data-reduction steps whose validity is independent of the final slope value. The ionizing emissivity is computed post-facto by integrating the fitted LF multiplied by fixed literature values for ξ_ion and f_esc; no parameter in that integral is adjusted to force agreement with reionization timelines. No self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or to close the derivation loop, and the paper compares its LF to external simulations rather than deriving those simulations from its own data. The chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Results rest on fitted luminosity function parameters and derived quantities that incorporate lensing and completeness models plus ionizing efficiency assumptions.

free parameters (2)

faint-end slope alpha = -1.98
Fitted directly to the binned UVLF data at z~7
ionizing emissivity log n_ion = 50.85
Integrated from the LF with additional efficiency and escape assumptions

axioms (2)

domain assumption Gravitational lensing magnification and uncertainty model is accurate
Required to reach M_UV=-12 and propagate errors
domain assumption Galaxy selection completeness and contamination are correctly modeled across the faint end
Essential for the steep slope measurement

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5793 in / 1435 out tokens · 58461 ms · 2026-05-08T05:49:34.718377+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 133 canonical work pages

[1]

Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025
[2]

J., Conselice, C

Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 169, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024
[3]

, keywords =

Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357, doi:10.1086/321547

work page doi:10.1086/321547 2001
[4]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 11372, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3902

Asada, Y., Sawicki, M., Abraham, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11372, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3902

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3902 2024
[5]

G., et al

Asthana, S., Kulkarni, G., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, L18, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf020

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf020 2025
[6]

2018, MNRAS, 479, 5184, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1820

Atek, H., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., & Schaerer, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5184, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1820

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1820 2018
[7]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.01793, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.01793

Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Wang, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.01793, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.01793

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.01793 2023
[8]

J., et al

Atek, H., Labb´ e, I., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 975, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 2024
[9]

JWST’s GLIMPSE: an overview of the deep- est probe of early galaxy formation and cosmic reionization

Atek, H., Chisholm, J., Kokorev, V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07542, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.07542 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473, doi:10.1038/nature25180

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07542 2025
[10]

B., Finkelstein , S

Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L12, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023
[11]

B., Pirzkal , N., Finkelstein , S

Bagley, M. B., Pirzkal, N., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, L6, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 2024
[12]

C., Rossi, E

Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., & Driver, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 945, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13348.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13348.x 2008
[14]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 3246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3308

Beauchesne, B., Cl´ ement, B., Hibon, P., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 527, Issue 2, pp.3246-3275, 527, 3246, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3308

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3308 2024
[15]

D., Bolton, J

Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Zhu, Y., & Hashemi, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08885, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08885

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08885 2024
[16]

J., Bower, R

Benson, A. J., Bower, R. G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 38, doi:10.1086/379160

work page doi:10.1086/379160 2003
[17]

2019, A&A, 631, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935974

Bergamini, P., Rosati, P., Mercurio, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 631, id.A130, <NUMPAGES>16</NUMPAGES>pp., 631, A130, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935974

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935974 2019
[18]

, keywords =

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393, doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 GLIMPSE UVLFz∼7 17

work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996
[19]

2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 325, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12372.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12372.x 2007
[20]

Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022
[21]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014

Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G., Oesch, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1009, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1014 2023
[22]

2022a, ApJ, 940, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

Stefanon, M. 2022a, ApJ, 940, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d1
[23]

J., Illingworth, G

Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints.https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00966

work page arXiv 2016
[24]

2017, ApJ, 843, 129, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4

Stefanon, M. 2017, ApJ, 843, 129, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4 2017
[25]

, keywords =

Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ArXiv e-prints.https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4295 —. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2014
[26]

AJ , keywords =

Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e 2021
[27]

J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..160B 931, 160

Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 931, 160, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4a
[28]

2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0 , 1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744 2020
[29]

EAZY: A Fast, Public Photometric Redshift Code

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

work page Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008
[30]

2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

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

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003
[31]

2025, PASA, 42, e107, doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10071

Cain, C., D’Aloisio, A., & Mu˜ noz, J. 2025, PASA, 42, e107, doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10071

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10071 2025
[32]

C., Kinney A

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

work page Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000
[33]

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

Caminha, G. B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A80, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527670

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527670 2016
[34]

2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.09436.https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436

Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.09436.https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436

work page arXiv 2022
[35]

Ceverino, D., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2791, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1386

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1386 2017
[36]

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

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

work page Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003
[37]

2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi: 10.1086/309513

Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi:10.1086/309513

work page doi:10.1086/309513 2000
[38]

J., et al

Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2615, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1260 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.24881, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.24881

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1260 2024
[39]

2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1756

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1756 2016
[40]

, keywords =

Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2874

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2874 2022
[41]

B., Bosman, S

Davies, F. B., Bosman, S. E. I., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18186, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.18186

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18186 2024
[42]

, keywords =

Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 142, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc 2018
[43]

R., Ocvirk, P., et al

Dawoodbhoy, T., Shapiro, P. R., Ocvirk, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6231, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2331

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2331 2023
[44]

2015, ApJ, 806, 67, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/67

Dayal, P., Mesinger, A., & Pacucci, F. 2015, ApJ, 806, 67, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/67

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/67 2015
[45]

2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi:10.1038/nature07648

work page Pith review doi:10.1038/nature07648 2009
[46]

, keywords =

Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472 2023
[47]

J., Johnson , B

Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340 2023
[48]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905

Whitler, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01905 2024
[49]

A., Becker, R

Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117, doi:10.1086/504836

work page doi:10.1086/504836 2006
[50]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 , arxivId =

Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023
[51]

2024, A&A, 684, A207, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321

Ferrara, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A207, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 2024
[52]

2006, ApJS, 164, 334, doi:10.1086/501350

Ferrarese, L., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 164, 334, doi:10.1086/501350

work page doi:10.1086/501350 2006
[53]

, keywords =

Finkelstein, S. L., Ryan, Jr., R. E., Papovich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 71, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/71 2015
[54]

, keywords =

Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8 2019
[55]

L., Bagley, M

Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L13, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 2023
[56]

2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

Finlator, K., Oh, S. P., ¨Ozel, F., & Dav´ e, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2464, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22114.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22114.x 2012
[57]

Finlator, K., Prescott, M. K. M., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1633, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2433

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2433 2017
[58]

R., Jaskot, A

Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11716. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11716 —. 2022b, ApJ, 930, 126, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4
[59]

J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1627 2023
[60]

, keywords =

Gaikwad, P., Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, F. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4093, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2566

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2566 2023
[61]

2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3209

Gatto, A., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3209

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3209 2017
[62]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi:10.1086/164079

work page doi:10.1086/164079 1986
[63]

Gnedin, N. Y. 2016, ApJ, 825, L17, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L17

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/l17 2016
[64]

2012, A&A, 547, A51, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219669

Grazian, A., Castellano, M., Fontana, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A51, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219669

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219669 2012
[65]

, author =

Greig, B., & Mesinger, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4838, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3026

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3026 2017
[66]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3217, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty735

Greig, B., & Mesinger, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3217, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty735

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty735 2018
[67]

2022, ApJS, 259, 20, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

Harikane, Y., Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 20, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc 2022
[68]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023
[69]

, keywords =

Hoag, A., Bradaˇ c, M., Huang, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 12, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7 2019
[70]

C., Ravindranath, S., & Su, J

Huang, K.-H., Ferguson, H. C., Ravindranath, S., & Su, J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 68, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/68

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/68 2013
[71]

, keywords =

Hutter, A., Dayal, P., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3698, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab602

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab602 2021
[72]

, keywords =

Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 2018
[73]

C., Chisholm, J., Atek, H., et al

Jecmen, M. C., Chisholm, J., Atek, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19995, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.19995

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19995 2026
[74]

2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447

Jullo, E., Kneib, J.-P., Limousin, M., et al. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 447, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/447 2007
[75]

, keywords =

Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710 2022
[76]

2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa639 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D

Katz, H., Ramsoy, M., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa639 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa639 2020
[77]

P., Ellis, R

Kneib, J. P., Ellis, R. S., Smail, I., Couch, W. J., & Sharples, R. M. 1996, ApJ, 471, 643, doi:10.1086/177995

work page doi:10.1086/177995 1996
[78]

, keywords =

Li, Z., Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A108, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348727

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348727 2024
[79]

J., Angel, P

Liu, C., Mutch, S. J., Angel, P. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 235, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1015

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1015 2016
[80]

2025, A&A, 698, A302, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453251

Llerena, M., Pentericci, L., Napolitano, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A302, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453251

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453251 2025
[81]

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

Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 2017

Showing first 80 references.