pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11345 · v1 · pith:UJMMIQE4new · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

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

Yuki Isobe , Mirko Curti , Roberto Maiolino , Qiao Duan , William McClymont , D\'avid Pusk\'as , Francesco D'Eugenio , Pierluigi Rinaldi
show 23 more authors
James A. A. Trussler Jan Scholtz Tobias J. Looser Erica Nelson Xihan Ji Danial Langeroodi Sandro Tacchella Gareth C. Jones Ignas Juod\v{z}balis Robert G. Pascalau Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao Hannah \"Ubler William M. Baker Andrew J. Bunker Stefano Carniani St\'ephane Charlot Emma Curtis-Lake Sophia Geris Maria Koller Jianwei Lyu Brant Robertson Christina C. Williams Zihao Wu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords mass-metallicity relationextremely metal-poor galaxiesstrong-line calibrationshigh-redshift galaxiesJWST NIRSpecchemical evolutionJADES survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

New stack-based calibrations from 1500 JWST spectra produce mass-metallicity relations at z=1-10 and flag 50 extremely metal-poor galaxy candidates.

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

The paper derives new strong-line calibrations for gas-phase oxygen abundances by stacking roughly 1500 medium-resolution NIRSpec spectra, reaching down to 12+log(O/H)=7.0 via the [OIII] auroral line. These calibrations show lower [OIII]/Hβ and [OIII]/[OII] ratios than earlier work based on individual high-excitation emitters, which the authors attribute to selection bias. Applying the new relations yields mass-metallicity relations across z=1-10 that exhibit lower metallicities at higher redshift but retain similar slope, plus a sample of 50 EMPG candidates at 1-4 percent solar metallicity whose scatter and sSFR trends point to stochastic gas flows. The results matter because they map chemical enrichment in the early universe over a broader, less biased range of galaxy masses than previously accessible.

Core claim

Stacking ~1500 JWST/NIRSpec spectra yields strong-line calibrations over 12+log(O/H)=7.0-8.7 that avoid the high-excitation bias of prior individual auroral-line samples; these calibrations produce canonical mass-metallicity relations at z=1-10 showing a metallicity decrease from z~0 to z~4-10 with no significant slope change, while also revealing 50 EMPG candidates at 12+log(O/H)=6.7-7.3 whose large MZR scatter and inverse sSFR-metallicity trend support stochastic star-formation histories driven by gas consumption, ejection, and metal-poor inflows, with two such objects also displaying broad Hα and prominent Lyα.

What carries the argument

The stack-based strong-line calibrations obtained by averaging spectra to detect the [OIII]λ4363 auroral line without high-excitation selection bias.

If this is right

  • Metallicities at fixed stellar mass are lower at z~4-10 than at z~0.
  • The slope of the mass-metallicity relation remains roughly constant from z=1 to z=10.
  • Extremely metal-poor galaxies exhibit large scatter in the mass-metallicity relation, with lower-metallicity objects tending to have lower specific star-formation rates.
  • Two Little Red Dot candidates among the EMPGs display broad Hα and strong Lyα, consistent with early black-hole growth in metal-poor gas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The calibration approach could be applied to other deep JWST fields to test whether the reported redshift evolution holds across different survey selections.
  • The reversed sSFR-metallicity trend in EMPGs may indicate that inflow-driven dilution dominates over star-formation-driven enrichment at the lowest masses and metallicities.
  • Finding broad-line signatures in two EMPGs raises the possibility that black-hole seeds can form and grow before significant metal enrichment occurs.

Load-bearing premise

That the stacked spectra give unbiased strong-line calibrations because they avoid the higher-excitation bias that affects individual auroral-line detections.

What would settle it

If low-excitation individual galaxies at z>4 observed without an auroral-line requirement show the higher [OIII]/Hβ ratios used in earlier calibrations, the stack-derived relations would be shown to underestimate metallicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11345 by Andrew J. Bunker, Brant Robertson, Christina C. Williams, Danial Langeroodi, D\'avid Pusk\'as, Emma Curtis-Lake, Erica Nelson, Francesco D'Eugenio, Gareth C. Jones, Hannah \"Ubler, Ignas Juod\v{z}balis, James A. A. Trussler, Jan Scholtz, Jianwei Lyu, Maria Koller, Mirko Curti, Pierluigi Rinaldi, Qiao Duan, Robert G. Pascalau, Roberto Maiolino, Sandro Tacchella, Sophia Geris, Stefano Carniani, St\'ephane Charlot, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Tobias J. Looser, William M. Baker, William McClymont, Xihan Ji, Yuki Isobe, Zihao Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stacked spectra in bins of strong-line based metallicities of 12 + log(O/H)SL < 7.0 (31 sources; top), 12 + log(O/H)SL = 7.0–7.3 (105 sources; middle), and 12 + log(O/H)SL = 7.3–7.5 (135 sources; bottom). The 12 + log(O/H)SL values for these stacks are based on Cataldi et al. (2025a)’s calibration, while we recalibrate the strong-line method by measuring 𝑇e-based metallicities of the stacks. All these stac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relations between metallicities and R3 (left) and O32 (right). We grid our photoionisation models with 0.5 dex intervals in log(𝑈) = (−3.5)–(−0.5), which are shown by the solid lines colour-coded by log(𝑈). Our R3 model with log(𝑈) = −0.5 agrees well with the models from the literature with the same log(𝑈) value (Nakajima & Maiolino 2022; Morishita et al. 2025a). These models are almost parallel especially… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relations between metallicities and strong-line diagnostics of our 𝑍-bin stacks (red circles) and 𝑀-bin stacks (orange squares). We extend our calibration to higher metallicities by adding median values of the 𝑧 ∼ 0 high-sSFR stacks (white diamonds; Andrews & Martini 2013) whose sSFRs are higher than those of the star-formation main sequence simulated at 𝑧 > 1 (McClymont et al. 2025a). The red solid curves… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One-dimensional R100 spectrum (top) and two-dimensional spectrum (bottom) of our most metal-poor galaxy candidate (JADES DR4 Unique ID: goods-s-ultradeep_127079 at 𝑧 = 5.262). The strong H𝛼 and H𝛽 lines, the weak [O iii]𝜆5007, and the absence of [O ii]𝜆𝜆3726,3729 suggest 12+log(O/H)SL = 6.72+0.13 −0.13 based on our calibrations. (Morishita et al. 2025a), Pseudo-LRD-NOM at 𝑧 = 5.96 (Caputi et al. 2026), T2c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: R3 vs. metallicity. (Left) The values simply drawn from the literature. (Right) The values that we uniformly recalculate with our new calibration and the same detection limit (3𝜎). We plot EMPG candidates from the literature without 𝑇e measurements or 12 + log(O/H)SL values based on our calibrations (Section 5.2). adopt (𝐶 = −41.64; Section 4.5), except for MPG-CR3, CAPERS￾39810, LAP2, the SAPPHIRES source… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: H𝛼-based SFR (SFRH𝛼) vs. 𝑀∗. The red circles with the error bars represent the median values with the 16th-84th percentiles of the sources used for the 𝑍-bin stacks, and the oranges squares show the same measurements for the 𝑀-bin stacks. The distribution of the R1000 sources from JADES and DH (JADES+DH sources) at 𝑧 = 4–10 is shown by the orange dashed contour, whose levels are 16, 50, and 84 percentiles … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass-metallicity relation of our JADES+DH sources at 𝑧 = 1–10. (Left) Actual distribution (dots) together with our EMPG candidates (triangles). These data points are colour-coded by 𝑧. The grey solid curve is the 𝑧 ∼ 0 MZR reported by Curti et al. (2020). (Right) Median values with 16th and 84th percentiles in bins of 𝑀∗ shown by the open circles in cyan (𝑧 = 1–2), yellow (𝑧 = 2–4), and red (𝑧 = 4–10). The… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mass-metallicity relation (left) and metallicity offset from Curti et al. (2020)’s 𝑧 ∼ 0 Fundamental Metallicity Relation (ΔFMR; right). The symbols are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ΔFMR vs. ΔMS for sources with log(𝑀∗/𝑀⊙ ) ≤ 8 (left) and log(𝑀∗/𝑀⊙ ) > 8 (right). The symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: SFRs based on the SED fitting (SFRSED; Section 2.4) of our EMPG candidates (grey thin lines) and their median value (red thick line) as a function of lookback time. Our EMPGs generally exhibit a rising star￾formation history. consumption and ejection, temporary quenching, subsequent pristine inflow, and rejuvenated starburst. In these simulations, the evolution￾ary tracks of galaxies deviate from the cano… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spectra of LRDs identified in our EMPG candidates: goods-n-mediumjwst_39353 and goods-s-mediumjwst_73690. a): R100 spectrum of goods￾n-mediumjwst_39353 with the Kron photometry of NIRCam, ACS, and WFC3 (red square: 𝑆/𝑁 > 3; red triangle: 3𝜎 upper limit). The inset panel shows the 2”×2” cutout image of NIRCam (R: F444W; G: F200W; B: F115W). b): R1000 goods-n-mediumjwst_39353 around H𝛽+[O iii]𝜆𝜆4959,5007 (t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present gas-phase metallicities of star-forming galaxies at $z=1$-10 with deep JWST/NIRSpec spectra from the JADES full data release, Dark Horse, and OASIS programmes. We stack $\sim$1500 medium-resolution spectra, yielding detections of the [OIII]$\lambda$4363 auroral line down to $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=7.0$ to derive stack-based strong-line calibrations over the metallicity range $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=7.0$-8.7. At a fixed metallicity, our stacks exhibit [OIII]$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ and [OIII]$\lambda$5007/[OII]$\lambda\lambda$3726,3729 values generally lower than calibrations based on high-$z$ individual auroral-line emitters, suggesting an observational bias towards higher excitation introduced when requiring auroral line detections in individual spectra. Based on our new calibrations, we obtain canonical mass-metallicity relations (MZRs) at z$=$1-10, identifying a decrease in metallicities from $z\sim0$ to z$\sim$4-10, without significant change in slope. Moreover, we identify 50 promising candidates of extremely metal-poor galaxies (EMPGs) with $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=6.7$-7.3 (1-4\% solar metallicity) at $z=1.2$-9.1. The MZRs of EMPGs are characterised by a large scatter, with those having lower metallicities generally exhibiting lower sSFRs, opposite of what expected from the local Fundamental Metallicity Relation. These results support a stochastic star-formation history involving gas consumption/ejection and metal-poor inflow, strongly affecting metallicities of low-mass galaxies. Furthermore, we identify two Little Red Dots in our EMPG candidates, both exhibiting broad H$\alpha$ and prominent Ly$\alpha$, offering insights into the early black-hole growth in extremely metal-poor environments.

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 stacks ~1500 medium-resolution JWST/NIRSpec spectra from JADES, Dark Horse, and OASIS at z=1-10 to detect the [OIII]λ4363 auroral line down to 12+log(O/H)=7.0. This yields new strong-line calibrations spanning 12+log(O/H)=7.0-8.7. The stacks show lower [OIII]λ5007/Hβ and [OIII]λ5007/[OII] ratios than prior high-z auroral samples, which the authors attribute to reduced excitation bias. Applying the calibrations produces MZRs at z=1-10 with decreasing metallicity toward higher redshift but invariant slope, plus 50 EMPG candidates (12+log(O/H)=6.7-7.3) at z=1.2-9.1 whose MZR exhibits large scatter and an inverted sSFR-metallicity trend. The results are interpreted as evidence for stochastic star-formation histories with gas consumption, ejection, and metal-poor inflows; two Little Red Dots are also noted among the EMPGs.

Significance. If the stack-derived calibrations prove robust, the work supplies a large-sample empirical anchor for high-redshift metallicity diagnostics that is less susceptible to the selection effects plaguing individual auroral-line detections. The reported MZR evolution, the sizable EMPG sample, and the counter-intuitive sSFR trend would directly inform models of early chemical enrichment and gas accretion. The identification of LRDs in EMPG environments additionally links black-hole growth to extremely metal-poor conditions.

major comments (2)
  1. [calibration derivation and abstract] The central premise that the stacked spectra produce unbiased strong-line calibrations because they avoid the higher-excitation bias of individual auroral detections (abstract and calibration section) is not accompanied by a quantitative test. No variance decomposition, comparison against photoionization grids at fixed metallicity, or explicit check that the lower [OIII]λ5007/Hβ and [OIII]λ5007/[OII] ratios map one-to-one onto the claimed 12+log(O/H) range without residual mixing of ionization parameter or dust distributions is presented. This assumption directly underpins the reported MZR slope invariance, the 50 EMPG identifications at 6.7-7.3, and the inverted sSFR-metallicity relation.
  2. [EMPG selection and MZR analysis] The EMPG MZR scatter and the claim that lower-metallicity objects show lower sSFRs (opposite the local FMR) rest on the new calibrations applied to individual galaxies. Without an explicit propagation of the calibration uncertainty or a demonstration that the stack locus remains valid when applied to the lower-S/N individual spectra of the EMPG candidates, the robustness of the reported trend cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] Clarify the exact stacking weights and any post-hoc S/N or redshift cuts applied before stacking; these choices affect the effective calibration locus.
  2. [results] Provide the full list of the 50 EMPG candidates with their individual line ratios and derived metallicities in a machine-readable table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications on our methodology and indicating the revisions that will be incorporated to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [calibration derivation and abstract] The central premise that the stacked spectra produce unbiased strong-line calibrations because they avoid the higher-excitation bias of individual auroral detections (abstract and calibration section) is not accompanied by a quantitative test. No variance decomposition, comparison against photoionization grids at fixed metallicity, or explicit check that the lower [OIII]λ5007/Hβ and [OIII]λ5007/[OII] ratios map one-to-one onto the claimed 12+log(O/H) range without residual mixing of ionization parameter or dust distributions is presented. This assumption directly underpins the reported MZR slope invariance, the 50 EMPG identifications at 6.7-7.3, and the inverted sSFR-metallicity relation.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the need for quantitative validation. The manuscript demonstrates that our stacks yield systematically lower [OIII]λ5007/Hβ and [OIII]λ5007/[OII] ratios than individual high-z auroral samples, which we attribute to the absence of the excitation bias inherent in requiring auroral detections in single objects. While this comparative evidence supports our interpretation, we agree that explicit tests against photoionization grids at fixed metallicity and a variance decomposition would provide stronger confirmation that the lower ratios correspond directly to the 7.0-8.7 metallicity range without residual ionization-parameter or dust mixing. In the revised manuscript we will add these analyses in the calibration section, including model-grid comparisons and an assessment of how stack properties vary with assumed ionization parameter, thereby reinforcing the robustness of the MZR slope invariance and EMPG results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [EMPG selection and MZR analysis] The EMPG MZR scatter and the claim that lower-metallicity objects show lower sSFRs (opposite the local FMR) rest on the new calibrations applied to individual galaxies. Without an explicit propagation of the calibration uncertainty or a demonstration that the stack locus remains valid when applied to the lower-S/N individual spectra of the EMPG candidates, the robustness of the reported trend cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that applying the stack-derived calibrations to individual lower-S/N spectra requires explicit uncertainty propagation and validation. The current analysis uses the new relations to identify the 50 EMPG candidates and derive their MZR and sSFR trends, but does not yet include a formal propagation of the calibration scatter or a direct test of the stack locus at reduced S/N. In the revised version we will add an error-propagation step when assigning metallicities to the EMPG candidates and will demonstrate the validity of the calibration by adding realistic noise to the stacks and re-deriving the relations, as well as by comparing results from high-S/N subsets. These additions will allow a quantitative assessment of the reported scatter and the inverted sSFR-metallicity trend. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical calibrations derived directly from stacked auroral-line detections

full rationale

The paper derives strong-line calibrations from direct [OIII]λ4363 detections in stacks of ~1500 JWST spectra over 12+log(O/H)=7.0-8.7, then applies those calibrations to obtain MZRs and EMPG candidates. No quoted equation or claim reduces a target result (MZR slope, EMPG metallicities, or sSFR trend) to a fitted parameter or self-citation that defines it by construction. The process is observational and self-contained against the input spectra; any self-citations to prior JADES work are not load-bearing for the central empirical claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions in nebular astrophysics for converting emission-line ratios to oxygen abundance; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Strong-line ratios calibrated against auroral-line metallicities provide reliable gas-phase oxygen abundances across the range 12+log(O/H)=7.0-8.7.
    This underpins the new calibrations derived from the stacks and their application to the MZR and EMPGs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6082 in / 1730 out tokens · 32851 ms · 2026-06-27T12:15:56.096429+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

236 extracted references · 219 canonical work pages · 47 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Alves de Oliveira C., et al., 2018, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VII. p. 107040Q ( @eprint arXiv 1805.06922 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2313839

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1117/12.2313839 2018

  2. [2]

    S., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260603522A p

    Ando M., Harikane Y., Katz H., Inayoshi K., Tanaka T. S., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260603522A p. arXiv:2606.03522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    Andrews B. H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

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

  4. [4]

    arXiv:2601.20045

    Asada Y., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.20045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260120045A p. arXiv:2601.20045

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20045 2026

  5. [5]

    M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.141A 653, A141

    Asplund M., Amarsi A. M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.141A 653, A141

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

  6. [6]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L...6B 965, L6

    Bagley M. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L...6B 965, L6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f31 2024

  7. [9]

    M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/130930 , 93, 817

    Baldwin A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/130930 , 93, 817

    work page doi:10.1086/130930 1981

  8. [10]

    A., Erb D

    Berg D. A., Erb D. K., Henry R. B. C., Skillman E. D., McQuinn K. B. W., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab020a , 874, 93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab020a 2019

  9. [11]

    A., Chisholm J., Erb D

    Berg D. A., Chisholm J., Erb D. K., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Olivier G. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..170B 922, 170

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

  10. [12]

    Bezanson R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...92B 974, 92

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf 2024

  11. [13]

    J., Dopita M

    Bian F., Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..175B 859, 175

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

  12. [15]

    , keywords =

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.288B 690, A288

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

  13. [18]

    arXiv:2507.17820

    Cai S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250717820C p. arXiv:2507.17820

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17820 2025

  14. [19]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi‐Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/308692 , 533, 682

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

  15. [20]

    J., Katz H., Rey M

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Rey M. P., Saxena A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3516C 523, 3516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1579 2023

  16. [22]

    Cappellari M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3273C 526, 3273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  17. [23]

    Pseudo Little Red Dot: an Active Black Hole Embedded in a Dense and Dusty, Metal-Poor Starburst Galaxy at z=5.96

    Caputi K. I., Cooper R. A., Rinaldi P., Navarro-Carrera R., Iani E., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.11466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260111466C p. arXiv:2601.11466

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11466 2026

  18. [24]

    , keywords =

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  19. [25]

    SpectRes: A Fast Spectral Resampling Tool in Python

    Carnall A. C., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.05165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170505165C p. arXiv:1705.05165

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

  20. [27]

    arXiv:2504.03839

    Cataldi E., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250403839C p. arXiv:2504.03839

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03839

  21. [28]

    Tracing nitrogen enrichment across cosmic time with JWST

    Cataldi E., et al., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.07955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251207955C p. arXiv:2512.07955

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07955

  22. [29]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

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

  23. [30]

    Chakraborty P., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...985...24C 985, 24

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

  24. [31]

    M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  25. [32]

    Chemerynska I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976L..15C 976, L15

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

  26. [33]

    MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST). I: Solar-Scaled Models

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

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

  27. [34]

    Chon S., Hosokawa T., Omukai K., Schneider R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2453C 530, 2453

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1027 2024

  28. [36]

    , keywords =

    Clarke L., Shapley A. E., Sanders R. L., Topping M. W., Brammer G. B., Bento T., Reddy N. A., Kehoe E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..133C 977, 133

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 2024

  29. [39]

    Cullen F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.2176C 540, 2176

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf838 2025

  30. [40]

    Curti M., Cresci G., Mannucci F., Marconi A., Maiolino R., Esposito S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.1384C 465, 1384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2766 2017

  31. [41]

    Curti M., Mannucci F., Cresci G., Maiolino R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..944C 491, 944

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910 2020

  32. [42]

    Curti M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..75C 684, A75

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

  33. [44]

    JADES Data Release 4 Paper I: Sample Selection, Observing Strategy and Redshifts of the complete spectroscopic sample

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251001033C p. arXiv:2510.01033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01033 2025

  34. [45]

    JADES Dark Horse: demonstrating high-multiplex observations with JWST/NIRSpec dense-shutter spectroscopy in the JADES Origins Field

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251011626D p. arXiv:2510.11626

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11626

  35. [46]

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277....4D 277, 4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ada148

  36. [47]

    J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..941D 658, 941

    Dalcanton J. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..941D 658, 941

    work page doi:10.1086/508913 2007

  37. [48]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Dav \'e R., Finlator K., Oppenheimer B. D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421...98D 421, 98

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x 2012

  38. [49]

    Dorner B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.113D 592, A113

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628263 2016

  39. [51]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

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

  40. [53]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p. arXiv:2310.12340

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340 2023

  41. [55]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672L.107E 672, L107

    work page doi:10.1086/527296 2008

  42. [56]

    J., Gorgas J., Peletier R

    Falc \'o n-Barroso J., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Vazdekis A., Ricciardelli E., Cardiel N., Cenarro A. J., Gorgas J., Peletier R. F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...532A..95F 532, A95

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116842 2011

  43. [57]

    J., et al., 2013, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2013, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    2013

  44. [58]

    Ferruit P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..81F 661, A81

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142673 2022

  45. [61]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., 2004, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ADNDT..87....1F 87, 1

    work page doi:10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 2004

  46. [62]

    arXiv:2512.11790

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251211790F p. arXiv:2512.11790

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11790

  47. [63]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ade9a1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...989...46F 989, 46

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade9a1

  48. [64]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...41G 362, 41

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x 2005

  49. [66]

    Geris S., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f1979G 545, staf1979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1979 2026

  50. [68]

    Guo Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822..103G 822, 103

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/103 2016

  51. [69]

    C., Johnson B

    Hao C.-N., Kennicutt R. C., Johnson B. D., Calzetti D., Dale D. A., Moustakas J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741..124H 741, 124

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

  52. [70]

    arXiv:2505.09186

    Harikane Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250509186H p. arXiv:2505.09186

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09186 2025

  53. [71]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1517H 7, 1517

    Heintz K. E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1517H 7, 1517

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7 2023

  54. [73]

    W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..568H 448, 568

    Hirano S., Hosokawa T., Yoshida N., Omukai K., Yorke H. W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..568H 448, 568

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv044 2015

  55. [74]

    Hirschmann M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3610H 526, 3610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955 2023

  56. [75]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250503873H p

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250503873H p. arXiv:2505.03873

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.03873 2025

  57. [76]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260506770H p

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260506770H p. arXiv:2605.06770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [78]

    Isobe Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..111I 925, 111

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3509 2022

  59. [79]

    Isobe Y., Ouchi M., Nakajima K., Harikane Y., Ono Y., Xu Y., Zhang Y., Umeda H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..139I 956, 139

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

  60. [80]

    Isobe Y., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541L..71I 541, L71

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056 2025

  61. [81]

    Isobe Y., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.547ag123I 547, stag123

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag123 2026

  62. [82]

    The Cliff: A Metal-Poor Little Red Dot Hosting an Overmassive Black Hole at $z = 3.55$

    Ivey L. R., et al., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2604.09177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260409177I p. arXiv:2604.09177

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.09177

  63. [84]

    I., Stasi \' n ska G., Meynet G., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Stasi \' n ska G., Meynet G., Guseva N. G., Thuan T. X., 2006, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763 , 448, 955

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

  64. [86]

    I., Thuan T

    Izotov Y. I., Thuan T. X., Guseva N. G., Liss S. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1956I 473, 1956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2478 2018

  65. [89]

    arXiv:2505.12505

    Ji X., Belokurov V., Maiolino R., Monty S., Isobe Y., Kravtsov A., McClymont W., \"U bler H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250512505J p. arXiv:2505.12505

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.12505 2025

  66. [91]

    D., Leja J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J. L., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019, Prospector: Stellar population inference from spectra and SEDs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.025

    2019

  67. [92]

    Stellar Population Inference with Prospector

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

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

  68. [95]

    C., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250920455J p

    Jones G. C., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250920455J p. arXiv:2509.20455

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20455

  69. [97]

    arXiv:2504.03551

    Juod z balis I., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250403551J p. arXiv:2504.03551

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03551 2025

  70. [99]

    arXiv:2502.20437

    Kannan R., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.20437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250220437K p. arXiv:2502.20437

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20437 2025

  71. [101]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..142...35K 142, 35

    work page doi:10.1086/341326 2002

  72. [103]

    , keywords =

    Kisielius R., Storey P. J., Ferland G. J., Keenan F. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14989.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..903K 397, 903

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14989.x 2009

  73. [104]

    Springer Nature, Netherlands, @doi 10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1\_106-1

    Kobayashi C., Taylor P., 2023, Chemo-Dynamical Evolution of Galaxies. Springer Nature, Netherlands, @doi 10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1\_106-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1 2023

  74. [105]

    Kojima T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898..142K 898, 142

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba047 2020

  75. [111]

    Langan I., Ceverino D., Finlator K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa880 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1988L 494, 1988

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa880 2020

  76. [113]

    Langeroodi D., Hjorth J., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae346f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...997L..30L 997, L30

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae346f 2026

  77. [115]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    Laseter I. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

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

  78. [116]

    H., Maseda M

    Laseter I. H., Maseda M. V., Bunker A. J., Cameron A. J., Curti M., Simmonds C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.15024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251015024L p. arXiv:2510.15024

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15024 2025

  79. [117]

    How to Measure Galaxy Star Formation Histories II: Nonparametric Models

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....3L 876, 3

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

  80. [118]

    J., Burke V

    Lennon D. J., Burke V. M., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..103..273L 103, 273

    1994

Showing first 80 references.