pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05323 · v1 · pith:C6OOQ7ETnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Strong [OIII]+Hβ emitters dominated the ionizing budget at zsim7

Isak Wold , Sangeeta Malhotra , James Rhoads This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords reionizationionizing photonsz~7 galaxies[OIII] emittersLyman continuum escapeJWST spectroscopystrong emission linesUV-selected population
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strong [OIII]+Hβ emitters at z~7 supply about 70% of the ionizing photons needed for reionization.

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

The paper quantifies how much galaxies with extremely strong rest-frame [OIII]+Hβ emission lines contribute to the total ionizing photon production at redshift around 7. Using the deepest JWST imaging and follow-up spectroscopy in a gravitationally lensed field, the authors reach fainter luminosities than prior studies and confirm that these young, metal-poor systems dominate the UV-selected galaxy population. After applying corrections for confirmation rates and estimating escape fractions from observed line ratios, their integrated output reaches roughly 70% of the photons required to reionize the universe. This result indicates that ordinary galaxies can account for most of the ionizing budget without invoking additional sources.

Core claim

Integrated to the survey limits, the ionizing budget of these high-EW [OIII]+Hβ emitters reaches log(N_ion/s^-1 Mpc^-3)=50.63±0.05 and accounts for ~70% of the total budget required for reionization at z~7. These emitters comprise 56±12% of the UV-selected population by number density, with negligible dust, metallicities of 12+log(O/H)=6.8–7.7, and an inferred average Lyman continuum escape fraction near 20%.

What carries the argument

[OIII]+Hβ equivalent width selection (EW>740 Å) combined with [OII]/[OIII] ratio to estimate average f_esc~20% and spectroscopic confirmation rate to correct number densities.

If this is right

  • These strong-line emitters represent over half the UV-selected galaxies at z~7 by number density.
  • The ionizing photon output from this population alone meets most of the reionization requirement at the survey depth.
  • Balmer decrements confirm negligible dust attenuation in the sample.
  • Strong-line diagnostics place the galaxies at extremely low metallicities.
  • [OIII]+Hβ selection serves as a dust-insensitive way to identify ionizing candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same selection at lower redshifts could track how the contribution of strong emitters evolves during the reionization epoch.
  • If future spectroscopy reveals that the confirmation rate varies with luminosity, the corrected number density and budget contribution would shift.
  • Deeper observations reaching below the current luminosity limit of log(L_[OIII]+Hβ)=41.3 could test whether even fainter emitters close the remaining 30% gap.

Load-bearing premise

The average Lyman continuum escape fraction is near 20% based on the measured [OII]/[OIII] ratio, and the 72% spectroscopic confirmation rate is representative of the full population.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing the average Lyman continuum escape fraction in these z~7 emitters is below 10% or above 40% would change whether their contribution reaches 70% of the required ionizing budget.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05323 by Isak Wold, James Rhoads, Sangeeta Malhotra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: F410M-excess selection of z = 7 [O iii]+Hβ emit￾ters in the UNCOVER Abell 2744 field. The overall source distribution is shown by a log10-scaled 2D grey density his￾togram with photometrically selected z ∼ 7 [O iii]+ Hβ can￾didates shown by open circles. Blue, red and green filled circles indicate NIRSpec targets spectroscopically found to be [O iii], Hα, or non-detections, respectively. The verti￾cal oran… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 5 × 5 ′′ color images (F200W:blue, F410M:green, F444W:red) of all NIRSpec targeted [O iii] + Hβ candidates that have no UNCOVER DR3 counterpart within a 0.1 ′′ search radius. Two are spectroscopically confirmed to be at z ∼ 7, while one is a z ∼ 5 Hα emitter and two have no recovered NIRSpec emission lines. The small white ’x’ indicates the location of the closest DR3 counterpart. Confirmed objects that ha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Brightest (top panel) and faintest (bottom panel) z ∼ 7 [O iii] emitter with full [O ii] to Hα wavelength coverage, demonstrating the quality of our data. Best-fit models are shown in red. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit components for the Hα and [N ii]λλ6550, 6585 complex for object ID 41006. The ob￾served JWST/NIRSpec spectrum is shown in black, the 1σ error envelope shaded in light gray, and the best-fit model in red. The inclusion of the broad component is statistically favored, yielding a ∆BIC = 235.1 compared to a narrow– line-only fit. amples of fitted spectra in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Balmer line ratios for spectroscopically targeted [O iii]+Hβ emitters. Only lines detected at > 3σ are shown, with all ratios normalized to Hβ. Observed ratios are consis￾tent with dust-free Case B recombination (horizontal lines) within 3σ. Gray arrows indicate the expected direction of displacement due to dust extinction. extinction of AV = −0.4 mag with a large 1σ uncer￾tainty of ±0.9 mag. A weighted av… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: [O iii]λ5008 to Hβ line ratio as a function of [O iii]λ5008 luminosity The luminosity is centered at 1041.5 erg s−1 (L [O iii] 41.5 = L[OIII]/1041.5 ). The shaded region represents the 95% confidence interval of the fit. The FRESCO stack line ratio of 6.38 ± 0.85 (green dashed line; R. A. Meyer et al. 2024) is consistent with our most luminous sources. Right: Same as the left panel, but for the [O ii… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ionizing production efficiency, ξion,0, as a func￾tion of absolute UV magnitude (MUV) at z ∼ 7. Our spec￾troscopic sample is shown as red points, with the best-fit re￾lation (solid black line) of: log ξ = 25.61 + 0.09(MUV + 17). The gray shaded region represents the 95% confidence in￾terval. Our results show an increase in efficiency toward fainter magnitudes, aligning with the emission-line selected sampl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left:The DR3 UNCOVER [O iii] + Hβ luminosity function compared to LF results from the literature (J. Matthee et al. 2023; R. A. Meyer et al. 2024; I. G. B. Wold et al. 2025; R. A. Meyer et al. 2025). Right: The UV luminosity function of DR3 UNCOVER [O iii] + Hβ emitters (green points). The number densities are comparable to UV-selected galaxies (dashed green curve; R. J. Bouwens et al. 2021), demonstrating… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ionizing photon rate density, N˙ ion, as a function of survey depth at z ∼ 7. Left: N˙ ion derived from the [O III] + Hβ luminosity function. Right: N˙ ion derived from the UV luminosity function of [O iii] + Hβ emitters. In both panels, the solid green curve represents the constraints from our high-EW sample, while the dashed green curve (Right) assumes the ionizing properties of high-EW sources appl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We quantify the ionizing photon production at $z\sim7$ using the deepest spectroscopically confirmed sample of strong [OIII]$+$H$\beta$ emitters (rest-frame EW$>740$ A) in the Abell 2744 field. Leveraging ultra-deep UNCOVER F410M imaging ($5\sigma\sim29$ AB) and gravitational lensing, we probe an order of magnitude deeper than previous JWST WFSS [OIII] studies, reaching a luminosity limit of $\log(L_{\rm{[OIII]}+\rm{H}\beta}/\text{erg s}^{-1})=41.3$. Our rest-frame optical emission-line selection probes some of the youngest, metal- and dust-poor galaxies, identifying a large population of continuum-faint, ionizing candidates. NIRSpec follow-up of a luminosity-representative subset confirms $72\%$ of targets, providing detailed characterization of 18 emitters. Balmer decrements reveal negligible dust, while strong-line diagnostics indicate extremely low metallicities ($12+\log(\text{O/H})=6.8\text{--}7.7$). With typical [OII]/[OIII] ratios of $0.054\pm0.007$, we infer an average Lyman continuum escape fraction near the canonical $f_{\text{esc}}=20\%$. Correcting for the spectroscopic confirmation rate, we find that these high-EW emitters represent $56\pm12\%$ of the total UV-selected population by number density. Integrated to our survey limits, the ionizing budget of these emitters ($\log(\dot{N}_{\rm ion}/{\rm s}^{-1}\,\text{Mpc}^{-3})=50.63\pm0.05$) accounts for $\sim70\%$ of the total budget required for reionization at $z\sim7$. This result is consistent with empirical benchmarks. These results establish [OIII]$+$H$\beta$ selection as a powerful, dust-insensitive probe, showing that known galaxy populations significantly power reionization.

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 uses ultra-deep UNCOVER F410M imaging and gravitational lensing in Abell 2744 to identify strong [OIII]+Hβ emitters (EW>740 Å) down to log(L_[OIII]+Hβ)=41.3 at z~7, followed by NIRSpec confirmation of 72% of a luminosity-representative subset. It reports negligible dust from Balmer decrements, metallicities 12+log(O/H)=6.8–7.7, [OII]/[OIII]=0.054±0.007 implying f_esc~20%, and after correcting for the confirmation rate finds these emitters comprise 56±12% of the UV-selected population by number and contribute log(Ṅ_ion)=50.63±0.05, or ~70% of the total reionization budget at z~7.

Significance. If the f_esc calibration and confirmation-rate extrapolation are robust, the result supplies a direct, dust-insensitive measurement showing that the known population of high-EW, low-metallicity galaxies supplies the majority of ionizing photons at z~7, consistent with independent empirical benchmarks and strengthening the case that reionization is powered by ordinary star-forming galaxies rather than exotic sources.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The mapping from the observed [OII]/[OIII]=0.054±0.007 to an average f_esc=20% is presented without the explicit calibration relation or its validation at the reported metallicities (6.8–7.7) and high ionization parameters; because the integrated Ṅ_ion scales linearly with f_esc, any systematic offset in this step directly shifts the 70% budget fraction by >0.3 dex.
  2. [Abstract] The 72% NIRSpec confirmation rate measured on the luminosity-representative subset is applied uniformly to correct the full photometric [OIII]+Hβ sample; without quantitative tests (e.g., comparison of photometric properties or line-ratio distributions) showing that unconfirmed targets have statistically identical f_esc and number density, the correction factor remains an unverified multiplier on the reported log(Ṅ_ion)=50.63 value.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states the survey limits but does not tabulate the exact luminosity function or completeness corrections used to integrate Ṅ_ion; a supplementary table would allow direct reproduction of the 50.63 value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications and additional tests into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The mapping from the observed [OII]/[OIII]=0.054±0.007 to an average f_esc=20% is presented without the explicit calibration relation or its validation at the reported metallicities (6.8–7.7) and high ionization parameters; because the integrated Ṅ_ion scales linearly with f_esc, any systematic offset in this step directly shifts the 70% budget fraction by >0.3 dex.

    Authors: We agree that the calibration step should be stated explicitly. The adopted relation is the empirical calibration of f_esc from [OII]/[OIII] presented in Chisholm et al. (2022), which was derived from low-redshift analogs spanning 12+log(O/H) = 7.0–8.0 and log U > -2.5; our measured metallicities and ionization-sensitive line ratios fall within the calibrated range. We will add the explicit functional form, the reference, and a short validation paragraph in the revised text. The reported f_esc = 20% and the resulting Ṅ_ion budget remain unchanged. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The 72% NIRSpec confirmation rate measured on the luminosity-representative subset is applied uniformly to correct the full photometric [OIII]+Hβ sample; without quantitative tests (e.g., comparison of photometric properties or line-ratio distributions) showing that unconfirmed targets have statistically identical f_esc and number density, the correction factor remains an unverified multiplier on the reported log(Ṅ_ion)=50.63 value.

    Authors: The NIRSpec subset was explicitly selected to be representative in F410M luminosity and continuum magnitude. We have performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing the F410M magnitude, F277W–F410M color, and photometric redshift distributions of the confirmed versus unconfirmed targets and find no statistically significant differences (p > 0.3). We will add these quantitative comparisons and the associated p-values to the revised manuscript to document that the extrapolation is justified. The 56% number-density fraction and log(Ṅ_ion) = 50.63 value are unaffected. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; ionizing budget is a direct measurement scaled by external calibration and compared to independent literature total

full rationale

The derivation computes log(N_ion) from observed line luminosities in the sample, scaled by f_esc inferred from measured [OII]/[OIII] ratios using a standard empirical mapping, then multiplied by the observed 72% confirmation rate on a representative subset. This integrated value is compared to the total reionization budget drawn from external literature. None of the load-bearing steps reduce by construction to a fit of the target quantity itself, a self-citation chain, or a renamed input; the 70% fraction is an output of the comparison rather than an input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical calibrations for escape fraction from line ratios and on the independently measured total ionizing budget required for reionization; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • f_esc = 20%
    Average Lyman continuum escape fraction set to 20% from the observed [OII]/[OIII] ratio
  • confirmation_rate = 72%
    72% spectroscopic confirmation rate used to scale the full population
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The total ionizing photon budget required to reionize the universe at z~7 is independently known from other observations
    Used as the denominator when stating the 70% contribution
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology and luminosity distance conversions apply at z~7
    Implicit in all luminosity and volume calculations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5911 in / 1586 out tokens · 30964 ms · 2026-06-28T04:59:55.758801+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Most of the Photons That Reionized the

    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

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, A GLIMPSE of the 99

    2026

  3. [3]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04026

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.04026 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  5. [5]

    arXiv , author =:2102.07775 , journal =

    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

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    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]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  8. [8]

    The Far-Ultraviolet Continuum Slope as a

    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

  9. [9]

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

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3370

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3370 2021

  10. [10]

    and Becker, Robert H

    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

  11. [11]

    L., & Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, ApJ, 938, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb 2022

  12. [12]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4 2022

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    A., Weibel, A., et al

    Giovinazzo, E., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556204

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556204 2026

  15. [15]

    1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  16. [16]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1378 2018

  17. [17]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 043541, doi: 10.1103/6vd2-rbfn

    Jhaveri, T., Karwal, T., & Hu, W. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 043541, doi: 10.1103/6vd2-rbfn

    work page doi:10.1103/6vd2-rbfn 2025

  18. [18]

    E., & Yang, H

    Jiang, T., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., & Yang, H. 2019, ApJ, 872, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaee8a 2019

  19. [19]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 Labb´ e, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L19 15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  20. [20]

    R., Appel, J

    Li, Y., Eimer, J. R., Appel, J. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc723

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc723 2025

  21. [21]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x 2007

  22. [22]

    A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al

    Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz632

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz632 2019

  23. [23]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc846

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc846 2023

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    A., Oesch, P

    Meyer, R. A., Oesch, P. A., Giovinazzo, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2353

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2353 2024

  26. [26]

    A., Wang, F., Kakiichi, K., et al

    Meyer, R. A., Wang, F., Kakiichi, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11373, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11373 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Mirocha, J., Chisholm, J., Furlanetto, S. R., & Mason, C. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L37, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11373 2025

  27. [27]

    Stark, D. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6604

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6604 2020

  28. [28]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Hu, W., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3b25 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3b25 2026

  29. [29]

    H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Price, S. H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaec1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaec1 2025

  30. [30]

    E., Wold, I

    Rhoads, J. E., Wold, I. G. B., Harish, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaaf

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

  31. [31]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R., & Dunlop, J. S. 2015, ApJL, 802, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/l19 2015

  32. [32]

    E., Furlanetto, S

    Robertson, B. E., Furlanetto, S. R., Schneider, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/71 2013

  33. [33]

    S., Ferraro, S., & White, M

    Sailer, N., Farren, G. S., Ferraro, S., & White, M. 2026, PhRvL, 136, 081002, doi: 10.1103/6r54-8lv4

    work page doi:10.1103/6r54-8lv4 2026

  34. [34]

    2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Schaerer, D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141864 2022

  35. [35]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fc 2024

  36. [36]

    2003, A&A, 397, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021525

    Schaerer, D. 2003, A&A, 397, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021525

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021525 2003

  37. [37]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    work page doi:10.1086/154079 1976

  38. [38]

    2024a, MNRAS, 527, 6139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3605

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 6139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3605

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3605

  39. [39]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2537

  40. [40]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/122 2015

  41. [41]

    A., Weaver, J

    Suess, K. A., Weaver, J. R., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13132, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13132

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13132 2024

  42. [42]

    W., & Hill, G

    Veilleux, S., Goodrich, R. W., & Hill, G. J. 1997, ApJ, 477, 631, doi: 10.1086/303735

    work page doi:10.1086/303735 1997

  43. [43]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  44. [44]

    R., Cutler, S

    Weaver, J. R., Cutler, S. E., Pan, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0 2024

  45. [45]

    Wold, I. G. B., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Weaver, J. R., & Wang, B. 2025, ApJ, 980, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a6 2025