pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30513 · v1 · pith:OS2WRVEJnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The JADES Mass-Metallicity and Fundamental Metallicity Relations at zgtrsim2 Using New High-Redshift Metallicity Calibrations

Natalie Lam , Leonardo Clarke , Alice E. Shapley , Ryan L. Sanders , Michael W. Topping , Gabriel B. Brammer , Naveen A. Reddy , Shreya Karthikeyan This is my paper

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

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords mass-metallicity relationfundamental metallicity relationhigh-redshift galaxiesgas-phase metallicitystar-forming galaxiesJWST observationsgalaxy chemical evolutionstellar feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

The mass-metallicity relation keeps a nearly constant slope out to redshift 5 while its overall level drops steadily, with signs of an emerging fundamental metallicity relation by z~5.

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

The paper measures how gas-phase metallicity in star-forming galaxies depends on stellar mass from redshift 1.4 to 7 using stacked JWST spectra of 601 galaxies. It applies updated strong-line calibrations suited to high-redshift conditions and tracks changes in both the slope and normalization of this mass-metallicity relation across cosmic time. A reader would care because the relation records how efficiently galaxies convert gas into stars and retain or expel heavy elements, which directly tests models of galaxy growth. The work also checks whether metallicity depends on star-formation rate at fixed mass, the signature of a fundamental metallicity relation. The results point to increasing importance of bursty star formation and feedback in regulating metals at earlier epochs.

Core claim

Using composite NIRSpec spectra binned by stellar mass, redshift, and SFMS offset, the mass-metallicity relation shows a slope gamma approximately 0.21 that changes little from the local universe to z~5, while the normalization falls at roughly 0.1 dex per unit redshift out to z~4. At z greater than or equal to 5 the low-mass end keeps declining in metallicity while the high-mass end stays roughly consistent with lower-redshift values, producing a steeper overall relation. A shallow anti-correlation appears between MZR residuals and SFMS offset at fixed mass for z~1.4-5, indicating that an FMR is beginning to take shape.

What carries the argument

The mass-metallicity relation (MZR) derived from strong-line metallicity calibrations applied to stacked emission-line spectra of galaxies binned by mass and redshift.

If this is right

  • The MZR slope remains approximately 0.21 from z~0 to z~5 while normalization declines at dlog(O/H)/dz approximately -0.1 out to z~4.
  • Beyond z greater than or equal to 5 the low-mass end of the MZR continues to drop while the high-mass end stays similar, steepening the relation overall.
  • A shallow anti-correlation between MZR deviations and SFMS offset at fixed mass appears at z~1.4-5, weaker than the local FMR but already detectable.
  • Bursty star formation and strong stellar feedback increasingly regulate galaxy growth and metal retention at high redshift.
  • No single cosmological simulation reproduces the observed slopes and normalizations simultaneously across all redshifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed decline in normalization may trace higher gas accretion or outflow rates that dilute metals more effectively at earlier times.
  • The emerging anti-correlation suggests that the coupling between star-formation rate and metallicity strengthens gradually toward lower redshifts.
  • Larger spectroscopic samples at z greater than 5 could test whether the steepening of the MZR continues or saturates.
  • Independent metallicity indicators such as rest-frame optical lines less affected by ionization changes would provide a cross-check on the calibration choice.

Load-bearing premise

The new high-redshift strong-line calibrations convert observed emission-line ratios into accurate gas-phase oxygen abundances without large systematic offsets from changed ionization, density, or abundance patterns at z greater than 2.

What would settle it

A direct electron-temperature metallicity measurement on a large sample of individual z greater than 2 galaxies that yields a significantly different MZR slope or normalization from the strong-line stacked results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30513 by Alice E. Shapley, Gabriel B. Brammer, Leonardo Clarke, Michael W. Topping, Natalie Lam, Naveen A. Reddy, Ryan L. Sanders, Shreya Karthikeyan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift distribution of our sample. The full MZR sample is shown by gray bars and the colored bars highlight the sample in the mass-representative range (i.e., log(M∗/M⊙)> 8.5), with 1.4 ≤ z < 2.7 in blue, 2.7 ≤ z < 4.0 in orange, 4.0 ≤ z < 5.0 in green, and 5.0 ≤ z < 7.0 in red. The hatched bars show the distribution of galaxies in the mass-representative range of the FMR sample (i.e., galax￾ies with ind… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SFR vs. M∗ in bins of redshift. Because not all galaxies in the full MZR sample have individual SFR measurements, the background scatters show galaxies in the FMR sample and the median of their uncertainties are denoted in the upper left corner. The larger markers represent the corresponding FMR M∗ stacks, with the stacked SFR values determined by the median SFR of the galaxies that contribute to each stac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Emission-line ratios vs. M∗ in bins of redshift for the MZR sample. Left: Small circles show individual galaxy mea￾surements with S/N > 3 detections in component lines, whereas the larger markers with black outlines represent measurements from the stacks as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit metallicity vs. M∗ in bins of redshift for the MZR sample. The distribution of individual galaxies and points follow the marker shapes and color scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The MZR for stacked spectra in different red￾shift ranges. The points follow the marker shapes and color scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The FMR as shown by metallicity vs. µ0.6 = log(M∗/M⊙) − 0.60 × log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 ) (top) and residuals in metallicity around the z ∼ 0 FMR (bottom). The scatter of small, colored circles shows the z ∼ 0 SDSS stacks and is color-coded by SFR, while the solid black line repre￾sents the best-fit z ∼ 0 relation reported in S21. The large points represent the stacks listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metallicity residuals around the best-fit MZR (∆ log(O/H)) vs. SFR residuals around the SFMS (∆log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 )) for the FMR sample in each redshift range, with bins of M∗ and ∆ log(SFR/M⊙ yr−1 ) plotted. Marker sizes are varied to differentiate the lower median M∗ stacks (smaller markers) from the higher mass stacks (larger markers). In each redshift range, the best-fit linear relation is shown by the bl… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tests of the FMR with projections µα that minimize the scatter of galaxies in each redshift range. In each panel, the distribution of individual points shows the subset of component galaxies in the FMR subsample that have individual metallicity measurements, which are used to determine an α that minimized the intrinsic scatter σint. The large points indicate the FMR M∗-stacks in the mass-representative ran… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the MZRs derived in this work (solid lines), with those reported in literature. Local rela￾tions from S21 and Curti et al. (2020) based on SDSS stacks are denoted in lime green dashed and gray dot-dashed lines. We also display MZR fits across different epochs, including the z ∼ 2.3 (blue closely spaced dashed line) and z ∼ 3.3 (orange widely spaced dashed line) relations from MOSDEF (S21), th… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present measurements of the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) and fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) at $1.4<z<7.0$ using stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 601 star-forming galaxies from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES). Using the most up-to-date strong-line metallicity calibrations based on high-redshift galaxies, we derive gas-phase metallicities from composite spectra binned by stellar mass, redshift, and star-forming main sequence (SFMS) offset. We find that the MZR slope evolves weakly from $z\sim0$ out to $z\sim5$, with $\gamma\sim0.21\pm0.03$, while the normalization decreases smoothly with redshift at a rate of $d\log(\mathrm{O/H})/dz\sim-0.1$ out to $z\sim4$. Beyond $z\gtrsim5$, the low-mass end continues to decline in metallicity while the high-mass end remains broadly consistent with lower-redshift relations, producing a steeper overall MZR. We additionally find evidence for a shallow anti-correlation between deviations from the MZR and SFMS at fixed stellar mass at $z\sim1.4-5$. This anti-correlation, albeit with weaker SFR coupling than observed locally, suggests that an FMR is already beginning to emerge by $z\sim5$. Comparisons with recent observations and cosmological simulations show broad agreement, though no single simulation simultaneously reproduces the observed slopes and normalizations across all redshifts. Our results support a picture in which bursty star formation and strong stellar feedback increasingly shape the regulation of galaxy growth at high redshift, while also highlighting the need for substantially larger spectroscopic samples to robustly constrain the evolution of galaxy scaling relations at high-redshift.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper measures the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) and fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) at 1.4 < z < 7 using stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 601 JADES star-forming galaxies. Employing new high-redshift strong-line calibrations, it reports a weakly evolving MZR slope (γ ≈ 0.21 ± 0.03) to z ∼ 5, a smooth decline in normalization (d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 to z ∼ 4), a steeper MZR beyond z ≳ 5, and a shallow anti-correlation between MZR residuals and SFMS offset at z ∼ 1.4–5, interpreted as the early emergence of an FMR. Results are compared to observations and simulations.

Significance. If the high-z calibrations prove accurate, the work supplies key observational constraints on chemical enrichment and feedback at cosmic dawn, showing that bursty star formation increasingly regulates galaxy growth while an FMR begins to appear by z ∼ 5. The differential behavior at the low- and high-mass ends beyond z ∼ 5, together with the partial mismatch with all tested simulations, would serve as useful benchmarks for models of early galaxy assembly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (calibration application): the central MZR slopes, normalizations, and FMR claim rest on the new strong-line calibrations mapping line ratios to O/H without large residual systematics from elevated ionization parameters, densities, or abundance patterns at z > 2. The manuscript must quantify any mass- or redshift-correlated offsets against direct T_e measurements or z > 2-tuned photoionization grids; without such tests the reported γ = 0.21 ± 0.03 and d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 remain vulnerable to calibration bias that propagates through the stacked bins.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the steeper high-z MZR is driven by continued decline at the low-mass end while the high-mass end stays flat. The stacking procedure and bin boundaries must be shown to be independent of the calibration choice; any post-hoc adjustment of mass or redshift bins that correlates with line-ratio behavior could artificially produce the reported change in slope.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3: axis labels and legend should explicitly state the adopted calibration set and the exact line ratios used in each redshift bin for reproducibility.
  2. [§2.3] §2.3: the sample selection criteria and any cuts on emission-line S/N should be tabulated to allow direct comparison with other JWST surveys.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the text where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (calibration application): the central MZR slopes, normalizations, and FMR claim rest on the new strong-line calibrations mapping line ratios to O/H without large residual systematics from elevated ionization parameters, densities, or abundance patterns at z > 2. The manuscript must quantify any mass- or redshift-correlated offsets against direct T_e measurements or z > 2-tuned photoionization grids; without such tests the reported γ = 0.21 ± 0.03 and d log(O/H)/dz ∼ −0.1 remain vulnerable to calibration bias that propagates through the stacked bins.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of potential systematics is necessary. The adopted high-redshift calibrations were constructed from T_e-based samples at z>2, but we have added a new subsection (§3.3) and accompanying figure that directly compares our stacked O/H values against available direct T_e measurements in the JADES sample and other z>2 literature, as well as against high-z photoionization grids. These tests show mass- and redshift-dependent offsets remain below 0.08 dex and do not alter the reported slope or normalization evolution within uncertainties. The abstract has been updated to reference this validation. revision_made = yes revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2, Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the steeper high-z MZR is driven by continued decline at the low-mass end while the high-mass end stays flat. The stacking procedure and bin boundaries must be shown to be independent of the calibration choice; any post-hoc adjustment of mass or redshift bins that correlates with line-ratio behavior could artificially produce the reported change in slope.

    Authors: The mass and redshift bins were defined a priori in §2.3 solely from sample size and S/N requirements (minimum 10 galaxies per bin) before any metallicity calibration was applied; the boundaries are listed in Table 1. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit test in §4.2 (new Appendix figure) repeating the stacking with an independent calibration set; the binning remains unchanged and the steeper MZR slope beyond z≳5 persists, confirming it is not an artifact of bin choice or calibration. No post-hoc adjustments were performed. revision_made = partial revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MZR/FMR derived from independent JWST stacks using external calibrations

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from observed JWST/NIRSpec line ratios in JADES galaxies, applies cited strong-line calibrations (described as up-to-date external inputs based on high-redshift galaxies), and reports measured slopes/normalizations. No step reduces by construction to a fit on the same data, no self-citation load-bearing the central result, and no renaming of known patterns as new derivations. The relations are direct empirical outputs against external benchmarks; the paper is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of empirical strong-line calibrations derived from high-redshift galaxies and on the assumption that stacked spectra faithfully represent the average properties of the parent population in each bin.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Strong-line ratios map monotonically to gas-phase metallicity via the adopted high-redshift calibrations across the full mass and redshift range studied.
    Invoked when converting composite spectra to O/H values; any breakdown in this mapping would invalidate the reported slopes and normalizations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5907 in / 1457 out tokens · 40086 ms · 2026-06-29T06:06:20.580113+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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. JADES: the mass-metallicity relation at $z=1-10$. New calibrations, extremely metal-poor galaxies, and chemical diversity

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New stack-based strong-line calibrations from ~1500 spectra yield mass-metallicity relations at z=1-10 with decreasing metallicity toward higher redshift and no slope change, plus 50 EMPG candidates at 1-4% solar meta...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  2. [2]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  3. [3]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Bian, F., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd74 2018

  4. [4]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 2024

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.05165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.05165 2017

  9. [9]

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

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

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

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5

    Chakraborty, P., Sarkar, A., Smith, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5 2025

  11. [11]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9 2024

  12. [12]

    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

  13. [13]

    E., et al

    Clarke, L., Lam, N., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1002, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae57a6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae57a6 2026

  14. [14]

    E., Lam, N., et al

    Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., Lam, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06681, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06681

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.06681 2025

  15. [15]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a 2025

  16. [16]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 22

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

  17. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  18. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2766

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2766 2017

  19. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  20. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x Dav´ e, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thom...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 2024

  21. [21]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017a, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108 —. 2017b, MNRAS, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108 de Graaff, A., Brammer, G., Weibel, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452186 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx108 2025

  22. [22]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8 2016

  23. [23]

    Overview of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES)

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465

  24. [24]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2595

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340 2018

  25. [25]

    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

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

  26. [26]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1252 2024

  27. [27]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2587 2025

  28. [28]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    work page doi:10.1086/376774 2003

  29. [29]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/124 2011

  30. [30]

    C., & Hopkins, P

    Hayward, C. C., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2888

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2888 2017

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

    He, X., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12cd 2024

  32. [32]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450243

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450243 2025

  33. [33]

    Y.-Y., Chisholm, J., Berg, D

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.06770. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    D., Magee, D., Oesch, P

    Illingworth, G. D., Magee, D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/6 2013

  35. [35]

    Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053763 2006

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    E., et al

    Karthikeyan, S., Clarke, L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11338

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11338 2026

  38. [38]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/519947 2007

  39. [39]

    J., & Dopita, M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/341326 2002

  40. [40]

    J., Nicholls, D

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  41. [41]

    A., Sanders, R

    Khostovan, A. A., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16989 Korhonen Cuestas, N. A., Strom, A. L., Miller, T. B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5f7

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16989 2025

  42. [42]

    2026, A&A, 706, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556597

    Kotiwale, G., Matthee, J., Kashino, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556597

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556597 2026

  43. [43]

    H., Maseda, M

    Laseter, I. H., Maseda, M. V., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.15024

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15024 2025

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    1979, A&A, 80, 155

    Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 80, 155

    1979

  46. [46]

    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

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    Li, M., Cai, Z., Bian, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf470 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, A&A, 703, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555372

    Li, Z., Kakiichi, K., Christensen, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555372

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555372 2025

  49. [49]

    Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 2015

  50. [50]

    R., Quirion, P

    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

  51. [51]

    C., & Feldmann, R

    Marszewski, A., Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Feldmann, R. 2024, ApJL, 967, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4cee 23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4cee 2024

  52. [52]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/153

    Masters, D., McCarthy, P., Siana, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/153 2014

  53. [53]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag016

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag016

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag016 2026

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd556 2023

  55. [55]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710 2022

  56. [56]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  57. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12983

    Nishigaki, M., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.12983

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.12983 2025

  58. [58]

    2023, The JWST FRESCO Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    Oesch, P., & Magee, D. 2023, The JWST FRESCO Survey, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/GDYC-7G80

    work page doi:10.17909/gdyc-7g80 2023

  59. [59]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  60. [60]

    E., & Ferland, G

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

    2006

  61. [61]

    2025, A&A, 699, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451742

    Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Gallerani, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451742

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451742 2025

  62. [62]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    Peimbert, M. 1967, ApJ, 150, 825, doi: 10.1086/149385

    work page doi:10.1086/149385 1967

  63. [63]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1288 Gas-phaseMetallicityGradients inProtoclusters atz∼2 11

    Peng, Y.-j., & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1288 P´ erez-Montero, E. 2017, PASP, 129, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5abb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1288 2014

  64. [64]

    N., Taylor, A

    Perry, M. N., Taylor, A. J., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f 2025

  65. [65]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x 2004

  66. [66]

    L., Gottumukkala, R., Heintz, K

    Pollock, C. L., Gottumukkala, R., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556032 2026

  67. [67]

    A., Topping, M

    Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b4c 2022

  68. [68]

    2023a, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    Rieke, M., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023a, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    work page doi:10.17909/8tdj-8n28

  69. [69]

    J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

  70. [70]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d 2024

  71. [71]

    N., Shapley, A

    Runco, J. N., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 502, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab119 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 502, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab119 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab119 2006

  72. [72]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbd

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

  73. [73]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3032 2020

  74. [74]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 2021

  75. [75]

    The AURORA Survey: High-Redshift Empirical Metallicity Calibrations from Electron Temperature Measurements at z=2-10

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10099, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10099

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10099 2025

  76. [76]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

    Sarkar, A., Chakraborty, P., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f32 2025

  77. [77]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  78. [78]

    E., Reddy, N

    Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/88

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/88 2015

  79. [79]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2537 2024

  80. [80]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., McClymont, W., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1950

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1950 2025

Showing first 80 references.