Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 99 references

A New Window on the H{\alpha} Luminosity Function and Star Formation Rate Density from 1.2 < z < 6.6 from JWST Medium-Band Photometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single JWST medium-band dataset now measures the Hα luminosity function from z = 1.25 to 6.6 and finds the dust-corrected cosmic star formation rate density runs 0.2–0.3 dex above UV-based estimates at cosmic noon.

desk verdict The observed Hα luminosity function is carefully built and worth having; the dust-corrected SFRD excess is a one-parameter dust prescription away from disappearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08203 v1 pith:VXY2EACK submitted 2026-08-08 astro-ph.GA

Nicholas S. Martis , Chris Willott , Gregor Rihtaršič , Vesna Pirc Jevšenak , Roberto Abraham , Yoshihisa Asada , Maruša Bradač , Gabriel Brammer
show 18 more authors
Guillaume Desprez Vicente Estrada-Carpenter Kartheik Iyer Lamiya Mowla Adam Muzzin Gaël Noirot Ghassan T. E. Sarrouh Marcin Sawicki Sunna Withers Giordano Felicioni Jon Judež Danilo Marchesini Vladan Markov Katherine Myers Luke Robbins Visal Sok Wren Suess Roberta Tripodi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords HαluminosityfunctionstarformationratedensityJWSTNIRCammedium-bandphotometryemission-linegalaxiescosmicnoonepochofreionizationdustattenuationphotometricredshifts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish the first self-consistent measurement of the $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ luminosity function from cosmic noon ($z \approx 1.25$) into the epoch of reionization ($z = 6.6$), and from it the dust-corrected cosmic star formation rate density across that range. The claim matters because almost all previous $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ work stopped at $z \approx 3$, leaving high-redshift star formation histories to be built from ultraviolet (UV) or infrared tracers that disagree with each other. Tracing $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ through eleven NIRCam medium-band filters in three deep surveys (4101 galaxies), the authors recover the expected peak of star formation at $z \approx 2$ and a decline toward $z = 6$, but with a normalization 0.2–0.3 dex above UV-based estimates and closer to infrared-based ones. If correct, the universe formed more stars at cosmic noon than UV surveys inferred, sharpening a known tension with the measured stellar mass density.

What carries the argument

The engine is emission-line boosting of medium-band photometry: for each galaxy a power law is fit in $f_\lambda$ to four continuum filters bracketing the filter that contains $\mathrm{H}\alpha$, and the flux density excess in that filter, multiplied by the filter width, gives the $\mathrm{H}\alpha + [\mathrm{NII}]$ line flux. NIRSpec prism spectroscopy validates the fluxes with no systematic offset and 0.23 dex scatter. The luminosity function is built with the $1/V_\mathrm{max}$ estimator (Schmidt 1968), corrected for completeness from injected-image simulations, and fit to Schechter functions by unbinned maximum likelihood, giving faint-end slopes $\alpha \approx -1.2$ to $-1.6$. The dust-corrected ladder uses $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha,\mathrm{int}} = L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha,\mathrm{obs}} \times 10^{0.4 A_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}}$ with $A_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} = 0.44\,A_V$ on the Calzetti et al. (2000) curve, $A_V$ from DENSEBASIS SED fits, and the Kennicutt & Evans (2012) conversion $\log \mathrm{SFR} = \log L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} - 41.27$.

What would settle it

Measure star formation for the same galaxies in the $z = 1.25$–$2.25$ bins from rest-frame mid- or far-infrared luminosity (MIRI photometry or ALMA continuum): if the resulting star formation rate density tracks the UV-based estimates instead of sitting 0.2–0.3 dex higher, then the $A_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} = 0.44\,A_V$ rescaling over-corrects the sample. A second test is to rerun the $z \approx 6$ bin on a wider-area survey to see whether the excess over grism measurements survives with the Abell 370 overdensity the paper identifies removed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that one dataset and one analysis chain can measure the $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ luminosity function from $1.25 < z < 6.6$ — from the peak of cosmic star formation into reionization — and that the dust-corrected star formation rate density that follows is higher than previously reported. The observed luminosity functions agree with earlier ground-based, Spitzer, and JWST grism measurements where they overlap, the largest discrepancy being a 0.2–0.5 dex lower normalization at $z \approx 2.5$ relative to one ground-based survey. After correcting each galaxy for dust with the stellar $A_V$ from SED fitting scaled as $A_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} = 0.44\,A_V$ on the Calzetti et al. (2000) curve, the star formation rate density peaks at $z \approx 2$, declines toward $z = 6$, and at $z = 1$–$2$ sits 0.2–0.3 dex above UV-based estimates, closer to infrared measurements. The authors call the elevated normalization tentative but statistically robust, identifying the dust attenuation law as the main systematic.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dust-corrected star formation rate density ladder rests on one scaling: every galaxy's nebular attenuation is taken to be 0.44 times its stellar V-band attenuation on the Calzetti curve, and the paper states that changing that ratio or curve shifts the result by about 0.2 dex — enough to erase the claimed difference from UV measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ luminosity function is now measured in one self-consistent framework from $1.25 < z < 6.6$, with the faint end reaching $\log L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} \approx 40.7$ (solar units) at $z \approx 1.5$ and the shape spanned over almost three orders of magnitude in luminosity.
  • The dust-corrected star formation rate density peaks at $z \approx 2$ and declines toward $z = 6$, but its normalization at $z \approx 1$–$2$ is 0.2–0.3 dex above UV-based estimates and in line with recent infrared measurements.
  • Comparing observed and dust-corrected star formation rate densities implies an obscured fraction of about 80% at $z = 2$, declining to about 50% at $z = 4$ and staying flat out to $z = 6$.
  • The faint-end slope stays roughly constant, $\alpha \approx -1.2$ to $-1.6$, with no turnover down to $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} \approx 10^{40.5}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at $z < 2$.
  • If the elevated normalization holds, it widens the gap between integrated star formation and the measured stellar mass density, and the paper says this may require a revised initial mass function, attenuation law, or star formation calibration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A test the paper does not run: use Balmer decrements ($\mathrm{H}\alpha/\mathrm{H}\beta$) from the existing NIRSpec spectra to check the fixed $0.44$ nebular-to-stellar attenuation ratio per galaxy; a systematic offset would explain the elevated star formation rate density without any new data.
  • The same medium-band excess machinery can measure the $[\mathrm{OIII}] + \mathrm{H}\beta$ luminosity function in the bluer filters, giving an internal, self-consistent cross-check on the dust correction and on the [NII] subtraction.
  • Stacking ALMA or MIRI continuum on the $z > 4$ sample would test the paper's unexpected plateau in the obscured fraction, which disagrees with the decline expected from earlier work.
  • The per-galaxy dust correction mechanically flattens the faint-end slope; re-deriving the luminosity function with a single constant attenuation shift, as earlier surveys did, would separate the dust prescription from a genuine change in the luminosity function shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses NIRCam medium-band photometry from the CANUCS, JWST in Technicolor, and JUMPS surveys to measure the Hα luminosity function over 1.25 < z < 6.6, and then derives dust-corrected star formation rate functions and the cosmic star formation rate density. The photometric redshifts are validated against spectroscopy (outlier fraction 1.7%), line fluxes are validated against NIRSpec prism measurements (0.04 dex offset, 0.23 dex scatter), and completeness is assessed with full image simulations. The observed luminosity function is the primary result. The dust-corrected SFRD is reported to be 0.2–0.3 dex higher than UV-based estimates, with a peak at z ~ 2 and a decline toward z = 6, but this elevation is explicitly described as tentative and dependent on the adopted dust attenuation prescription.

Significance. If the observed luminosity function stands, this is a valuable, self-consistent measurement that bridges cosmic noon and the epoch of reionization, extending Hα studies to fainter luminosities over a wide redshift range with a uniform methodology. The validation against spectroscopy and image simulations is a clear strength, and the public availability of the data adds to its usefulness. However, the headline claim of an elevated, dust-corrected SFRD that 'eclipses' both UV and IR measurements is not established at the same level as the observed LF: it rests on a single per-galaxy dust correction, on priors derived from the observed LF when fitting SFR functions, and on fields that are strongly affected by overdensities. The paper's own error analysis shows that plausible changes to the dust prescription shift the SFRD by about 0.2 dex, the same size as the claimed excess. The manuscript is therefore more compelling as a measurement of the observed Hα LF and its evolution than as a definitive new SFRD normalization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (2)] The entire dust-corrected SFRD ladder is set by Eq. (2) using a single stellar A_V per galaxy, a fixed Calzetti attenuation curve, and the sentence 'We assume a stellar to nebular attenuation ratio of 0.44.' This sentence is ambiguous and potentially misapplied: Calzetti's 0.44 is the ratio of stellar to nebular color excess, E(B-V)_star/E(B-V)_gas, which translates to A_Hα ≈ 1.9–2.3 A_V for the Calzetti curve, not A_Hα = 0.44 A_V as written. The authors should state the exact formula used and verify the numerical implementation. More importantly, Sec. 5.1 itself states that changing the attenuation law or the 0.44 ratio shifts the SFRD by ~0.2 dex, which is exactly the size of the reported excess over UV measurements. Without per-galaxy MIR/FIR constraints, the abstract's claim of eclipsing both UV and IR estimates is not supported by the presented evidence; the paper should present the SFRD with a systematic uncertainty band from alternative dust prescriptions and frame the excess as tentative.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The SFR function fits use 'a prior on the SFR function parameters based on the observed luminosity function priors' because flat priors led to degenerate fits. This introduces a form of circularity: the dust-corrected SFR functions, and hence the integrated SFRD, are not independent of the observed LF shape. The authors should quantify how the fitted SFR functions and the resulting SFRD change under different prior choices, or present the SFRD as an integral of the data (with completeness corrections) rather than relying on the prior-influenced Schechter parameters.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 8] Field-to-field variations dominate the SFRD in several redshift bins: individual fields contribute >40% of the total SFRD at z ≈ 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the text identifies specific overdensities in MACS0417, MACS1149, and A370. This means that the high-redshift SFRD points and the claimed plateau in the obscured fraction at z > 4 are not robust against cosmic variance, which the formal error bars do not capture. The authors should show the SFRD computed after excluding the overdense fields or otherwise propagate the field-to-field scatter into the quoted uncertainties and into the comparison with UV/IR measurements.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 4] The paper notes that the per-object dust correction shifts galaxies from low to high luminosity and thereby flattens the faint-end slope. This is a selection effect introduced by the correction itself, so the resulting dust-corrected LF/SFR function slope is not an independent physical measurement. The text should either demonstrate that the flattening is not an artifact of the A_Hα prescription or clearly separate the observed LF slope evolution from the dust-corrected slope evolution when discussing trends with redshift.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'though eclipsing both' is colloquial and imprecise; it should be replaced by a quantitative statement, e.g., 'higher by 0.2–0.3 dex than typical UV and IR estimates, with systematic uncertainties of similar magnitude.'
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'Comprison' should be 'Comparison.'
  3. [Sec. 2] The JUMPS survey is referred to as the 'JWST Ultimate Medium-Band Photometric Survey' in the abstract and as the 'JWST Ultimate Photometric Survey' (listed as 'JWSTUltimate Photometric Survey') in Sec. 2; please make the acronym definition consistent.
  4. [References] The reference entries for Harikane et al. (2023) and Larson et al. (2023) appear malformed with titles and bibcodes embedded in an unusual way; they should be formatted consistently with the journal style.
  5. [Table A.1] In the F430M bin (z ≈ 5.53) the fit returns N = 34 and α = −0.46 ± 0.46, which is essentially unconstrained; this should be explicitly flagged in the table or the fit should be omitted from the comparison.
  6. [Sec. 1 / Table 1] The abstract states a redshift range of 1.2 < z < 6.6, while Table 1 lists bins starting at 1.25 < z < 1.75 and Sec. 3.1 gives 1.35 < z < 6.57; please harmonize these numbers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the observed LF is independently validated and the dust correction is an input assumption; the only mild feedback is using the observed LF as a prior for the SFR function fits that feed the SFRD.

  1. other [Section 4.3, Star Formation Rate Functions]
    "The one change we implement is to provide a prior on the SFR function parameters based on the observed luminosity function priors, since we found that flat priors led to poor fits due to the elevated bright end (see discussion below). This led to degeneracy in the fitted parameters, therefore we do not report the Schechter fit parameters for the SFR functions."

    The SFR functions fitted in Sec. 4.3 are the objects later integrated in Sec. 5.1 to produce the headline SFRD ('We integrate the SFR functions down to a limit of 0.27 M⊙ yr−1'). The fit is regularized with priors taken from the same survey's observed Hα LF fits, so the shape and redshift evolution of the SFRD are partly inherited from the observed LF rather than independently constrained by the dust-corrected data. This is a mild statistical circularity, but it is not the source of the 0.2–0.3 dex normalization excess, which comes from the per-object dust correction of Eq. (2); the prior mainly regularizes a degenerate bright-end/faint-end fit.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement, the observed Hα luminosity function, is built from photometry and validated against external data: spectroscopic redshifts, NIRSpec prism line fluxes, and comparison with previous ground-based and JWST grism measurements. Completeness is assessed with image simulations, not assumed from the LF itself. The dust-corrected LF and SFRD are derived from Eq. (2) using stellar A_V values from DENSEBASIS SED fits plus the Calzetti stellar-to-nebular attenuation ratio of 0.44; this is an explicit input assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper itself discloses that changing the attenuation law or the 0.44 ratio shifts SFRD by ~0.2 dex (Sec. 5.1), which is a systematic fragility rather than circularity. The only mild circularity is the informative prior on SFR function parameters taken from the observed LF fits; since the SFRD values are dominated by the binned dust-corrected data and the below-completeness contribution is <10% at z<4 and ~20% at higher z, this prior is not load-bearing for the headline normalization. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no result reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The observed luminosity function relies on standard survey techniques; the dust-corrected star formation rate density adds a chain of astrophysical calibrations, including the SFR conversion, Calzetti law, 0.44 nebular-to-stellar ratio, mass-metallicity [NII] correction, and a fitting prior that links the star formation rate functions back to the luminosity function. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Nebular-to-stellar attenuation ratio = 0.44
    Assumed constant in Eq. (2) to convert stellar A_V to A_Hα; the authors estimate about 0.2 dex systematic effect on the star formation rate density (Sec. 5.1).
  • Dust attenuation curve = Calzetti et al. (2000) law
    Assumed in Sec. 4.1 for all galaxies; alternative curves shift the dust-corrected luminosity function and star formation rate density.
  • SFR conversion zero point = log(SFR) = log L_Hα - 41.27
    Kennicutt and Evans (2012) calibration adopted in Eq. (4); standard but carries IMF and nebular assumptions.
  • SFR function fitting priors = Based on observed Hα LF Schechter parameters
    Sec. 4.3: priors on the star formation rate function parameters are taken from the luminosity function fits; the star formation rate density is then the integral of these star formation rate functions, so the headline number is not independent of the luminosity function fit.
  • SFRD integration limit = 0.27 solar masses per year
    Sec. 5.1: chosen to match Covelo-Paz et al. (2025) and Fu et al. (2025); the authors verify that 0.03 x SFR* gives similar results.
  • Completeness simulation morphology priors = Sersic n ~ 1.5, ellipticity ~ 0.3, Morishita et al. (2024) sizes
    Sec. 3.3: the injected galaxy shapes and SEDs set the completeness corrections that enter all luminosity function points.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc and Chabrier (2003) IMF
    Stated in Sec. 1; all luminosities, volumes, and star formation rates are computed in this framework.
  • domain assumption The medium-band excess over a power-law continuum equals the Hα+[NII] line flux
    Sec. 3.2: the core method; requires the four continuum filters to be free of strong emission lines and the power-law model to be accurate. Validated against NIRSpec prism fluxes with 0.04 dex offset and 0.23 dex scatter.
  • domain assumption [NII] contribution is removed using the Isobe et al. (2026) mass-metallicity relation
    Sec. 3.2: the [NII] correction can reach about 20% in the two lowest redshift bins; the relation is external and not verified on this sample.
  • domain assumption Completeness simulations with Sersic profiles, Morishita et al. (2024) sizes, and BAGPIPES SEDs accurately reproduce the real selection function
    Sec. 3.3: the 50% completeness limit drives which bins enter the Schechter fits.
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2000) attenuation curve with a 0.44 nebular-to-stellar ratio applies to each galaxy
    Sec. 4.1, Eq. (2): sets all dust-corrected luminosities and the final star formation rate density.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts are unbiased for the sample
    Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 2: the redshift quality cut assumes the Hα line stays within the chosen medium band; validated against a bright, lensed spectroscopic subsample with a 1.7% outlier fraction.
  • standard math The 1/Vmax estimator with the given completeness and bootstrapping yields unbiased luminosity function points
    Sec. 4.1, Eq. (1): standard Schmidt (1968) estimator; the key statistical assumption is that the survey selection function is fully captured by the completeness simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Window on the H{\alpha} Luminosity Function and Star Formation Rate Density from 1.2 < z < 6.6 from JWST Medium-Band Photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXY2EACK

@misc{pith2026260808203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Window on the H\alpha Luminosity Function and Star Formation Rate Density from 1.2 < z < 6.6 from JWST Medium-Band Photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXY2EACK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08203}
}
read the original abstract

We present the first self-consistent measurement of the H{\alpha} luminosity function over a wide redshift range, covering cosmic noon into the epoch of reionization. Our analysis utilizes a novel method based on James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) NIRCam medium-band imaging. We combine data from the CANUCS, JWST in Technicolor, and JUMPS surveys which offer deep, uniform imaging (29.5-30 AB, 3{\sigma}) with extensive NIRCam medium-band coverage, reaching up to 29 total filters (up to 20 JWST) when including ancillary Hubble Space Telescope (HST) ACS and WFC3/UVIS data. The superb spectral energy distribution (SED) sampling enables precise, reliable photometric redshift estimation (outlier fraction 1.7\%, {\sigma} N_MAD = 0.039 for this sample) as well as accurate continuum subtraction and line flux measurement verified by spectroscopic follow-up (no systematic offset, 0.23 dex scatter). We measure the H{\alpha} luminosity function (LF) from 1.25 < z < 6.6 by tracing the H{\alpha} emission line in 11 medium-band filters. The combination of depth, redshift coverage, and statistical power is unique, providing strong constraints on the shape of the LF over almost three orders of magnitude in luminosity. Our dense SED sampling enables us to reliably correct for dust attenuation and derive dust-corrected star formation rate functions as well as the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate density over the full redshift range. We recover the peak at z ~ 2 and a decrease toward z = 6, though with a higher normalization more in line with recent IR measurements than UV, though eclipsing both. This potential tension will be addressed in future work utilizing larger surveys with MIR coverage to better constrain the bright end of the luminosity function and the effects of dust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: RGB (F444W, F277W, F150W) images, photometry, and best-fit EAzY models for three example Hα-emitters detected at different redshifts. Filter response curves are shown below the spectrum, with filled curves indicating medium-bands. Photometry for wide-bands is shown in orange, for medium-bands in blue. Right: Schematic of the procedure used to measure emission line flux from photometry. The green point shows th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Comparison of spectroscopic redshifts (including CANUCS prism spectra and ancillary ground-based spectra, see Sar￾rouh & Asada et al. (2026)) with photometric redshifts. The number of sources in the comparison, outlier number and fraction, and median absolute deviation are indicated. Bottom: Comprison of Hα+NII fluxes obtained from photometry with values derived from CANUCS prism spectra by fitting gaussian mod… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Completeness as a function of Hα luminosity and redshift for each NIRCam medium-band sample. the [NII] contribution to retrieve isolated Hα fluxes. We deter￾mine the contribution of [NII] through the use of the redshift￾dependent mass-metallicity relation measured by Isobe et al. (2026). For this calculation, we use the stellar masses de￾rived from DENSEBASIS (Iyer et al. 2019) that are presented in Sarrouh et al. (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hα luminosity function (colored points) and Schechter fits (colored curves) in each of our nine redshift bins. Open circles show the dust￾corrected measurements. Transparent circles of both types indicate bins below the 50% completeness limit and are excluded from the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Schechter fits to the Hα luminosity function in every redshift bin shown together in order to better illustrate the evolution. Bottom: Redshift evolution of the best-fit Schechter function param￾eters for the observed Hα luminosity function. Uncertainties are de￾t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Star formation rate functions and Schechter fits in the same redshift bins as the luminosity functions. For comparison we show mea￾surements from Hα (Sobral et al. 2013; Covelo-Paz et al. 2025; Fu et al. 2025), a compilation of literature results from UV and IR (Reddy …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Star formation rate density as a function of redshift ob￾tained from integrating the star formation rate functions to a limit of 0.27 M⊙ yr−1 . The observed SFRD is shown as blue stars and the dust￾corrected SFRD as orange stars. For comparison we show a compila￾tion f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fractional contribution of each CANUCS field to the total mea￾sured star formation rate density. Note that observations are not avail￾able at 2.75 < z < 3.25 for MACS1149 and at 5.50 < z < 6.60 for MACS0417 and MACS1423. a group of highly star-forming dusty galaxies in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03154

    Antwi-Danso, J., Muzzin, A., Robbins, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.03154

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Asada, Y ., Desprez, G., Willott, C. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21543

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    & Ohta, K

    Asada, Y . & Ohta, K. 2022, ApJ, 924, 71 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2022

  4. [4]

    Bhangal, J., Man, A. W. S., Bakx, T. J. L. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 28

    2025

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 117

    Bollo, V ., González, V ., Stefanon, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 117

    2023

  6. [6]

    J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G., Ellis, R. S., Oesch, P., & Stefanon, M. 2022, ApJ, 940, 55

    2022

  7. [7]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34

    2015

  8. [8]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    2024

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools

    Brammer, G. 2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Matharu, J

    Brammer, G. & Matharu, J. 2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, Zenodo

    2021

  3. [11]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503

    2008

  4. [12]

    2013, A&A, 554, A70

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V ., Gruppioni, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A70

    2013

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 678, A15

    Calvi, R., Castignani, G., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, A&A, 678, A15

    2023

  6. [14]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Calzetti, D. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falcón-Barroso & J. H. Knapen, 419

    2013

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  8. [16]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  9. [17]

    A., et al

    Covelo-Paz, A., Giovinazzo, E., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A178

    2025

  10. [18]

    2012, A&A, 539, A31

    Cucciati, O., Tresse, L., Ilbert, O., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A31

    2012

  11. [19]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 1517

    Daddi, E., Dannerbauer, H., Stern, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1517

    2009

  12. [20]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011

    2023

  13. [21]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    2024

  14. [22]

    Evans, I. N. et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 22

    2024

  15. [23]

    L., Capak, P

    Faisst, A. L., Capak, P. L., Emami, N., Tacchella, S., & Larson, K. L. 2019, ApJ, 884, 133

    2019

  16. [24]

    L., Ryan, Jr., R

    Finkelstein, S. L., Ryan, Jr., R. E., Papovich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 71

    2015

  17. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 186

    Fu, S., Sun, F., Jiang, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 186

    2025

  18. [26]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  19. [27]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    1986

  20. [28]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8

    Gruppioni, C., Béthermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8

    2020

  21. [29]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 23

    Gruppioni, C., Pozzi, F., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23

    2013

  22. [30]

    C., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 124

    2011

  23. [31]

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, JWST/NIRSpec First Cen- sus of Broad-Line AGNs at z=4-7: Detection of 10 Faint AGNs with M_BH~10^6-10^7 M_sun and Their Host Galaxy Properties, publication Ti- tle: arXiv e-prints ADS Bibcode: 2023arXiv230311946H

    2023

  24. [32]

    2010, A&A, 509, L5

    Hayes, M., Schaerer, D., & Östlin, G. 2010, A&A, 509, L5

    2010

  25. [33]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610

    Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3610

    2023

  26. [34]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.11345

    Isobe, Y ., Curti, M., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.11345

    2026 arXiv

  27. [35]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116

    2019

  28. [36]

    D., Rodighiero, G., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L8

    2013

  29. [37]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    2023

  30. [38]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  31. [39]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1983, ApJ, 272, 54

    1983

  32. [40]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  33. [41]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V ., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38

    2024

  35. [43]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, L29, aDS Bibcode: 2023ApJ...953L..29L

    2023

  36. [44]

    C., Ly, C., Spitler, L., et al

    Lee, J. C., Ly, C., Spitler, L., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 782

    2012

  37. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08028

    Lin, X., Egami, E., Sun, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08028

    2025

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 147

    Lin, X., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 147

    2024

  39. [47]

    A., Kriek, M., et al

    Lorenz, B., Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, L20

    2025

  40. [48]

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

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97

    2017

  41. [49]

    C., Vijayan, A

    Lovell, C. C., Vijayan, A. P., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2127

    2021

  42. [50]

    A., Kashikawa, N., et al

    Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 738

    2007

  43. [51]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  44. [52]

    R., et al

    Magnelli, B., Elbaz, D., Chary, R. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A35

    2011

  45. [53]

    L., Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y ., & Zamorani, G

    Marshall, H. L., Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y ., & Zamorani, G. 1983, ApJ, 269, 35

    1983

  46. [54]

    S., Withers, S., Bradaˇc, M., et al

    Martis, N. S., Withers, S., Bradaˇc, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 83

    2025

  47. [55]

    Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Sarrouh, G. T. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L11

    2023

  48. [56]

    M., Kelson, D

    Matthews, A. M., Kelson, D. D., Newman, A. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 194

    2024

  49. [57]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004

    2024

  50. [58]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9

    2024

  51. [59]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Newman, J. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 113

    2011

  52. [60]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67

    2011

  53. [61]

    A., Marchesini, D., et al

    Muzzin, A., Suess, K. A., Marchesini, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.19706

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    P., Lawson, A., & Gronwall, C

    Nagaraj, G., Ciardullo, R., Bowman, W. P., Lawson, A., & Gronwall, C. 2023, ApJ, 943, 5

    2023

  55. [63]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  56. [64]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 229

    Pang, Y ., Wang, X., Treu, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 229

    2026

  57. [65]

    S., McLure, R

    Parsa, S., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Mortlock, A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3194

    2016

  58. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 48

    Pirzkal, N., Rothberg, B., Ly, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 48

    2013

  59. [67]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 3886

    Rasappu, N., Smit, R., Labbé, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3886

    2016

  60. [68]

    Reddy, N. A. & Steidel, C. C. 2009, ApJ, 692, 778

    2009

  61. [69]

    A., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 48

    2008

  62. [70]

    I., Iani, E., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Iani, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 12

    2024

  63. [71]

    2011, ApJ, 739, L40

    Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L40

    2011

  64. [72]

    A., & Yahil, A

    Sandage, A., Tammann, G. A., & Yahil, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 352

    1979

  65. [73]

    Sarrouh, G. T. E., Asada, Y ., Martis, N. S., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 3

    2026

  66. [74]

    & de Barros, S

    Schaerer, D. & de Barros, S. 2010, A&A, 515, A73

    2010

  67. [75]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297

    1976

  68. [76]

    A., Robertson, B

    Schenker, M. A., Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 196

    2013

  69. [77]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393

    1968

  70. [78]

    2015, A&A, 575, A74

    Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

    2015

  71. [79]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4747

    Shen, X., V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4747

    2020

  72. [80]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01286

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01286

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 14

    2012

  74. [82]

    A., Best, P

    Sobral, D., Kohn, S. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1739

    2016

  75. [83]

    N., et al

    Sobral, D., Smail, I., Best, P. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1128

    2013

  76. [84]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 94

    2022

  77. [85]

    C., Rudie, G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165

    2014

  78. [86]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 12

    Sun, F., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 12

    2025

  79. [87]

    R., Motohara, K., & Chen, N

    Terao, Y ., Spitler, L. R., Motohara, K., & Chen, N. 2022, ApJ, 941, 70

    2022

  80. [88]

    2024, A&A, 681, A118

    Traina, A., Gruppioni, C., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A118

    2024

  81. [89]

    & Stiavelli, M

    Trenti, M. & Stiavelli, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 767

    2008

  82. [90]

    P., Lovell, C

    Vijayan, A. P., Lovell, C. C., Wilkins, S. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3289

    2021

  83. [91]

    J., Cowley, W., et al

    Wang, L., Pearson, W. J., Cowley, W., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A98

    2019

  84. [92]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25022

    Wang, X., Sun, F., Asada, Y ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25022

    2026 arXiv

  85. [93]

    C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al

    Williams, C. C., Alberts, S., Ji, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 34

    2024

  86. [94]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V ., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64

    2023

  87. [95]

    J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y ., et al

    Willott, C. J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 74

    2024

  88. [96]

    J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al

    Willott, C. J., Doyon, R., Albert, L., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 025002

    2022

  89. [97]

    2023, ApJ, 958, L14

    Withers, S., Muzzin, A., Ravindranath, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L14

    2023

  90. [98]

    K., Treyer, M

    Wyder, T. K., Treyer, M. A., Milliard, B., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L15

    2005

  91. [99]

    A., Casey, C

    Zavala, J. A., Casey, C. M., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 165, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2021ApJ...909..165Z Article number, page 12 Martis et al.: HαLF and SFRD at 1.2<z<6.6 from JWST Medium-bands Appendix A: In the main body of this work, we...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.