pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30410 · v1 · pith:WT2PT3PRnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

RUBIES: The Evolution of the Ionization Parameter from 0 < z < 9

Nikko J. Cleri , Zach J. Lewis , Joel Leja , Jakob M. Helton , Emilie Burnham , Olivia Curtis , Anna de Graaff , Michaela Hirschmann
show 5 more authors
Harley Katz Michael V. Maseda Ian McConachie Adele Plat Lucie Scharre
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ionization parameterhigh-redshift galaxiesJWSTO32 emission line ratiogalaxy evolutionphotoionization modelsRUBIES survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ionization parameter U in galaxies rises by a factor of about 4 from redshift 2 to 6 even at fixed stellar mass and specific star formation rate.

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

This paper measures the ionization parameter U from the O32 emission line ratio in 434 galaxies at redshifts 3 to 9 using JWST/NIRSpec spectra from the RUBIES survey. It combines these data with lower-redshift samples to trace the evolution of U from z=0 to z=9. The measurements show that U increases with redshift and with specific star formation rate while decreasing with stellar mass. The redshift trend remains after holding stellar mass and star formation rate fixed. The authors supply multivariate relations that predict U from those three quantities when line ratios are unavailable and highlight a 0.3 dex systematic uncertainty arising from the spread of photoionization models consistent with any given O32 value.

Core claim

Using Cloudy photoionization models applied to O32 ratios, we infer U for 434 galaxies at 3<z<9 and find that U increases with redshift and sSFR while decreasing with stellar mass. We show that U increases with redshift even at fixed stellar mass and sSFR by a factor of ~4 from z=2 to z=6. Our results carry a systematic uncertainty of ~0.3 dex in log U arising from the range of models that reproduce the same O32 ratio without additional priors.

What carries the argument

The dimensionless ionization parameter U, inferred from the observed O32=[O III]/[O II] emission line ratio via Cloudy photoionization models.

If this is right

  • U can be estimated from redshift, stellar mass, and sSFR alone when O32 spectroscopy is unavailable.
  • Nebular conditions in galaxies change systematically with cosmic time even after accounting for mass and star formation rate.
  • Future modeling that ingests many emission lines simultaneously can tighten constraints on gas density, abundances, and ionizing sources for individual objects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the O32-to-U mapping holds, the evolution implies that the typical ionizing spectrum or gas density changes with redshift at fixed galaxy properties.
  • Emission-line-based estimates of star formation rate or metallicity at high redshift may need systematic corrections that grow with lookback time.
  • Extending the same O32 analysis to z>9 with future facilities could test whether the rise in U continues or saturates.

Load-bearing premise

Cloudy photoionization models supply a reliable and sufficiently unique mapping from the observed O32 ratio to U for the high-redshift galaxy population without extra priors from other lines.

What would settle it

A measurement of U in the same high-redshift galaxies using additional emission lines that removes the model degeneracy and shows no residual increase with redshift at fixed stellar mass and sSFR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30410 by Adele Plat, Anna de Graaff, Emilie Burnham, Harley Katz, Ian McConachie, Jakob M. Helton, Joel Leja, Lucie Scharre, Michaela Hirschmann, Michael V. Maseda, Nikko J. Cleri, Olivia Curtis, Zach J. Lewis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The log O32 ratio (defined in Equation 2) as a function of redshift (left), stellar mass (center), and sSFR derived from Hβ luminosity (right) for galaxies from RUBIES (circles; small circles indicate the [O II] S/N < 3 sample), LEGA-C (diamonds), KBSS (hexagons), SDSS (gray contours), and SPHINX20 and LUMEN simulations (blue and purple lines). The SPHINX20 and LUMEN lines in the left panel include shaded … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dimensionless ionization parameter log U as a function of log O32, demonstrating the difference in inferred log U values and uncertainties between the photoionization model inference method presented here and linear best-fit calibrations. We show RUBIES, KBSS, LEGA-C observations as points color-coded by redshift. Small points correspond to the RUBIES [O II] S/N < 3 sample. The medians in each log U step o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inferred ionization parameter as a function of redshift (left), stellar mass (center), and specific star formation rate derived from Hβ luminosity (right) for the LEGA-C, KBSS, and RUBIES observations. Small points correspond to the RUBIES [O II] S/N < 3 sample. Points are color coded by redshift. The black lines in each panel show the median linear fit with gray lines showing 100 draws from the MCMC. The … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inferred ionization parameter for LEGA-C, KBSS, and RUBIES observations against predictive multivariable fits to other observables and derived quantities (left-to-right): redshift and stellar mass, redshift and sSFR, stellar mass and sSFR, and all three of redshift, stellar mass, and sSFR. Smaller points show the RUBIES subsample of [O II] S/N < 3 galaxies. Observations are color-coded by spectroscopic red… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High-redshift galaxies have smaller radii, harder ionizing continua, and higher ionizing photon production efficiencies than lower redshift systems, which implies a corresponding evolution in nebular conditions. A key metric to quantify gas properties is the ionization parameter, q, the ratio of the local ionizing photon flux to the local hydrogen density. The ionization parameter is often inferred from observed emission line ratios, e.g., O32=[O III]/[O II]. Prior to JWST, statistical samples of ionization parameter-sensitive emission lines in the rest-frame optical remained inaccessible at high-z. We investigate the dimensionless ionization parameter, U=q/c at 3<z<9, inferred using Cloudy photoionization models from the O32 ratios for 434 galaxies in the RUBIES survey with JWST/NIRSpec PRISM and G395M spectroscopy, constituting the largest high-z population study of U to date. We compare to lower-redshift samples from SDSS, LEGA-C, and KBSS to probe the evolution of U from 0<z<9. We find that U increases with redshift and specific star formation rate (sSFR), and decreases with stellar mass. We combine the predictive power with multivariate relations to estimate U from redshift, stellar mass, and sSFR for use in cases where O32 is not available from spectroscopy, and show that U increases with redshift even at fixed stellar mass and sSFR by a factor of ~4 from z=2 to z=6. Crucially, and in contrast to previous linear best-fit calibrations, our inference results in a systematic uncertainty in log U of ~0.3 dex at zero measurement uncertainty due to the wide range of photoionization models that predict the same O32 ratio without informative priors. Finally, we discuss future modeling frameworks to accept many observed emission lines to simultaneously constrain gas-phase abundances, densities, ionizing sources, and ionization parameters to high accuracies for individual galaxies.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper measures the dimensionless ionization parameter U in 434 galaxies at 3<z<9 from the RUBIES JWST/NIRSpec survey by converting observed O32=[O III]/[O II] ratios using Cloudy photoionization models. It compares these to lower-redshift samples (SDSS, LEGA-C, KBSS) and reports that U increases with redshift and sSFR while decreasing with stellar mass. The authors fit multivariate relations in z, M*, and sSFR to predict U when O32 is unavailable and claim that U rises by a factor of ~4 from z=2 to z=6 even at fixed stellar mass and sSFR. The abstract explicitly notes a ~0.3 dex systematic uncertainty in log U arising from the range of models that reproduce the same O32 without additional priors.

Significance. If the reported trend survives model variations, the work supplies the largest high-redshift statistical sample of U measurements to date and supplies practical multivariate predictive relations. The explicit discussion of the 0.3 dex model-driven floor is a positive feature that correctly flags the dominant uncertainty.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results section on the fixed-M*/sSFR evolution: the central claim that U increases by a factor of ~4 from z=2 to z=6 at fixed stellar mass and sSFR is obtained by mapping O32 to U and then fitting the multivariate relation. Because the paper itself states that the same O32 can be produced by models differing by 0.3 dex in log U (with no measurement error), it is not shown whether the reported redshift trend exceeds or is comparable to this systematic floor when the model grid is varied.
  2. [Methods] Methods describing the Cloudy grid and O32-to-U conversion: the mapping assumes a single set of Cloudy models without reporting tests that vary density, metallicity, ionizing spectrum hardness, or geometry across the redshift range, even though the abstract acknowledges these parameters evolve with redshift and shift O32 at fixed U. An explicit robustness check (e.g., repeating the multivariate fit on alternate grids or with additional line constraints) is needed to establish that the fixed-M*/sSFR trend is not an artifact of the chosen model assumptions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: the abstract defines U = q/c as the 'dimensionless ionization parameter' but then refers to 'ionization parameter, q'; a brief clarification of the q vs. U convention would avoid reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and agree that additional clarification on model robustness is needed. We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results section on the fixed-M*/sSFR evolution: the central claim that U increases by a factor of ~4 from z=2 to z=6 at fixed stellar mass and sSFR is obtained by mapping O32 to U and then fitting the multivariate relation. Because the paper itself states that the same O32 can be produced by models differing by 0.3 dex in log U (with no measurement error), it is not shown whether the reported redshift trend exceeds or is comparable to this systematic floor when the model grid is varied.

    Authors: The 0.3 dex systematic uncertainty arising from the range of models that reproduce a given O32 is already stated explicitly in the abstract as the dominant uncertainty at zero measurement error. The reported factor of ~4 corresponds to ~0.6 dex, which exceeds this floor. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not explicitly demonstrate the trend's persistence when the underlying model grid is varied. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in the results section comparing the amplitude of the fixed-M*/sSFR redshift trend to the quoted 0.3 dex floor and will include a limited robustness test that repeats the multivariate fit on an alternate Cloudy grid. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods describing the Cloudy grid and O32-to-U conversion: the mapping assumes a single set of Cloudy models without reporting tests that vary density, metallicity, ionizing spectrum hardness, or geometry across the redshift range, even though the abstract acknowledges these parameters evolve with redshift and shift O32 at fixed U. An explicit robustness check (e.g., repeating the multivariate fit on alternate grids or with additional line constraints) is needed to establish that the fixed-M*/sSFR trend is not an artifact of the chosen model assumptions.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit robustness check is required. The present analysis adopts a single standard Cloudy grid, with the 0.3 dex uncertainty intended to capture the range of models consistent with the observed O32. We did not, however, perform redshift-dependent variations of density, metallicity, or ionizing spectrum in the conversion step. In the revised manuscript we will expand the methods section with an appendix that (i) varies these parameters across plausible high-z ranges and (ii) repeats the multivariate fit on the alternate grids to confirm that the reported fixed-M*/sSFR redshift evolution is not an artifact of the fiducial assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper infers the ionization parameter U from observed O32 line ratios via Cloudy photoionization model grids on new JWST data for 434 galaxies, then directly measures trends in the resulting U values versus redshift, stellar mass, and sSFR (including at fixed M* and sSFR). The multivariate relations are explicitly fitted to these inferred values and presented only as a secondary predictive tool for cases lacking O32 spectroscopy; they are not used to generate the core evolution claim. No self-citations, self-definitional mappings, or renamings of inputs as predictions appear in the abstract or described chain. The derivation relies on external model grids and lower-z comparison samples (SDSS, LEGA-C, KBSS) and remains independent of its own fitted outputs. The acknowledged 0.3 dex systematic floor from model degeneracies is a limitation on precision, not a circularity in the logic.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference depends on standard domain assumptions about photoionization modeling and data fitting for the relations; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • coefficients of multivariate U(z, M*, sSFR) relations
    Fitted to the RUBIES sample to enable estimation when O32 is unavailable
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cloudy photoionization models accurately map O32 line ratios to U across the relevant parameter space
    Used to convert observed emission lines into the physical ionization parameter

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5942 in / 1244 out tokens · 40791 ms · 2026-06-29T06:33:02.459921+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Population of Little Red Dot-like Quasars in SDSS

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Defines a sample of ~1300 SDSS quasars as Local Red Dots matching LRD photometric colors at z~0.4-0.8, with a V-shaped subset showing Balmer absorption and [NeV] emission, and SEDs modeled as reddened AGN plus host ga...

  2. LEGGOS I: The JWST LEGGOS Survey -- LEnsing and Galaxy Growth: Observing Substructures -- Unpacks the Nature of Clumpy Star Formation and Quenching in Gravitationally Lensed Galaxies beyond Cosmic Noon

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LEGGOS presents a uniform framework that jointly models lensing, photometry, and integral-field spectroscopy to disentangle stellar populations in clumps of high-redshift lensed galaxies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., Coe, D., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Larson, R. L., Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6001 2024

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  4. [4]

    A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b 2021

  5. [5]

    A., Kewley, L., V ogt, F

    Blanc, G. A., Kewley, L., V ogt, F. P. A., & Dopita, M. A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/99 2015

  6. [6]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  7. [7]

    J., & Zanotti, O

    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

  8. [8]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  9. [9]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  10. [10]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346 14 See https://hprc.tamu.edu/kb/User-Guides/Grace, where the namesake of the cluster is Grace Hopper

    work page doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  11. [11]

    M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

    Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac64a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac64a 2018

  12. [12]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  13. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Worley, C

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  14. [14]

    J., et al

    Choustikov, N., Katz, H., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 58199, doi: 10.33232/001c.158199

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.158199 2026

  15. [15]

    J., Olivier, G

    Cleri, N. J., Olivier, G. M., Backhaus, B. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f17 2025

  16. [16]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  17. [17]

    E., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., Shapley, A. E., McLure, R. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1340 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1340 2021

  18. [18]

    D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x 2012

  19. [19]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  20. [20]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  21. [21]

    K., Shapley, A

    Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813, doi: 10.1086/503623 12 N. J. CLERI ET AL

    work page doi:10.1086/503623 2006

  22. [22]

    The 2013 Release of Cloudy

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 Fernández, V ., Amorín, R., Firpo, V ., & Morisset, C. 2024, A&A, 688, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449224

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  23. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235c

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad235c 2024

  24. [24]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f 2024

  25. [25]

    M., van Hoof, P

    Gunasekera, C. M., van Hoof, P. A. M., Chatzikos, M., & Ferland, G. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 2023

  26. [26]

    L., Ellis, R., et al

    Harikane, Y ., Sanders, R. L., Ellis, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09186

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09186 2025

  27. [27]

    Array programming with NumPy,

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

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

  28. [28]

    E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Heintz, K. E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.adj0343

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adj0343 2024

  29. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2955

    Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2955

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955 2023

  30. [30]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  31. [31]

    E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T

    Hviding, R. E., de Graaff, A., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555816

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555816 2025

  32. [32]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376 2023

  33. [33]

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  34. [34]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 5568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1012

    Kaasinen, M., Kewley, L., Bian, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1012

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1012 2018

  35. [35]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44, doi: 10.21105/astro.2309.03269

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2309.03269 2023

  36. [36]

    J., & Zanotti, O

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  37. [37]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489, doi: 10.1086/519947

    work page doi:10.1086/519947 2007

  38. [38]

    Kennicutt, R. C. 1998a, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

  39. [39]

    Kennicutt, R. C. 1998b, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305588

  40. [40]

    C., & Evans, N

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  41. [41]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, ApJS, 142, 35, doi: 10.1086/341326

    work page doi:10.1086/341326 2002

  42. [42]

    J., & Ellison, S

    Kewley, L. J., & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183, doi: 10.1086/587500

    work page doi:10.1086/587500 2008

  43. [43]

    J., Geller, M

    Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Jansen, R. A. 2004, AJ, 127, 2002, doi: 10.1086/382723

    work page doi:10.1086/382723 2004

  44. [44]

    N., & Ogilvie, G

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x 2006

  45. [45]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 880, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed

  46. [46]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019b, ARA&A, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

  47. [47]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 2023

  48. [48]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l16 2013

  49. [49]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  50. [50]

    H., Maseda, M

    Laseter, I. H., Maseda, M. V ., Curti, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 Le Fèvre, O., Saisse, M., Mancini, D., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 2024

  51. [51]

    4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed

    Series, V ol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1670–1681, doi: 10.1117/12.460959

    work page doi:10.1117/12.460959

  52. [52]

    2022, A&A, 667, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243865

    Lebouteiller, V ., & Ramambason, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243865

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243865 2022

  53. [53]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99

    Leistedt, B., Alsing, J., Peiris, H., Mortlock, D., & Leja, J. 2023, ApJS, 264, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99 2023

  54. [54]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  55. [55]

    D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., & Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  56. [56]

    V ., de Graaff, A., et al

    Lewis, Z., Maseda, M. V ., de Graaff, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.03134

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03134 2025

  57. [57]

    D., et al

    Li, Y ., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcab4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcab4 2025

  58. [58]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142971 2022

  59. [59]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  60. [60]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16340.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404..738C 404, 738

    Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., & Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x 2010

  61. [61]

    2024, A&A, 689, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449240

    Marconi, A., Amiri, A., Feltre, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449240

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449240 2024

  62. [62]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  63. [63]

    S., Steidel, C

    McLean, I. S., Steidel, C. C., Epps, H., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2010

  64. [64]

    7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed

    Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351E, doi: 10.1117/12.856715

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856715

  65. [65]

    S., Steidel, C

    McLean, I. S., Steidel, C. C., Epps, H. W., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2012

  66. [66]

    8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed

    Series, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460J, doi: 10.1117/12.924794

    work page doi:10.1117/12.924794

  67. [67]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08939 RUBIES IONIZATIONPARAMETER13

    Moreschini, B., Belfiore, F., Marconi, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08939 RUBIES IONIZATIONPARAMETER13

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08939 2026

  68. [68]

    R., et al

    Nersesian, A., van der Wel, A., Gallazzi, A. R., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452662 2025

  69. [69]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 0.8.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 2014

  70. [70]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    Ono, Y ., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4d 2025

  71. [71]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

    Ono, Y ., Ouchi, M., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/155 2013

  72. [72]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    Ono, Y ., Harikane, Y ., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd44a 2023

  73. [73]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    1989

  74. [74]

    E., & Ferland, G

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

    2006

  75. [75]

    1979, MNRAS, 189, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95

    Smith, G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/189.1.95 1979

  76. [76]

    C., Estrada-Carpenter, V ., et al

    Papovich, C., Simons, R. C., Estrada-Carpenter, V ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8058

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8058 2022

  77. [77]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  78. [78]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  79. [79]

    10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2, v1.4.2, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 2022

  80. [80]

    A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/25 2012

Showing first 80 references.