Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

JWST galaxy counts can set the strongest limits yet on dark-matter–proton scattering for sub-GeV masses.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:03 UTC pith:3XLAKP7U

load-bearing objection New JWST UVLF limits on DM-baryon scattering, but the 'strongest limit' for n=-2 rests on a redshift-independent star-formation efficiency that is never stress-tested. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.02906 v2 pith:3XLAKP7U submitted 2025-11-04 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ex

Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST

Souradeep Das , Ranjini Mondol , Abhijeet Singh , Ranjan Laha This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ex
keywords dark matter-baryon scatteringUV luminosity functionJWSTsub-GeV dark matterstructure formation suppressioninteracting dark matterhalo mass functionhigh-redshift galaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that the abundance of bright galaxies seen by JWST at redshifts 8–16 can be used as a new cosmological probe of dark-matter–baryon scattering. It argues that such scattering, by suppressing structure formation, would reduce the number of galaxies at the faint and bright ends of the ultraviolet luminosity function, and that the observed JWST abundances are incompatible with large scattering cross-sections. For the velocity-dependent dipole-like case (cross-section proportional to v^-2) with protons, the paper claims the most stringent upper limits for dark-matter masses around 1–500 MeV, stronger than limits from CMB+BAO, Lyman-alpha forest, and Milky Way satellites. For other velocity scalings and for electron targets, the limits are competitive with existing cosmological bounds. The result matters because it turns JWST galaxy observations into a new, independent handle on non-gravitational dark-matter interactions.

Core claim

The central claim is that JWST spectroscopic UV-luminosity-function data rule out dark-matter–proton scattering with a momentum-transfer cross-section normalized by σ_{χp,-2} above about 10^-33.5 cm^2 for a dark-matter mass of 1 MeV, with the constraint applying across roughly 1–500 MeV for a v^-2 velocity dependence. Because the JWST data show an overabundance of bright early galaxies compared with pre-JWST models, any interaction that suppresses small-scale structure is strongly disfavored, making this probe more sensitive than CMB, Lyman-alpha, and Milky-Way-satellite analyses for this particular velocity dependence. The authors obtain the limits by computing linear matter power spectra w

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the galaxy-halo connection from the Thesan-Zoom simulation suite, expressed as a broken power-law star-formation efficiency ϵ⋆(M_h) with parameters (ϵ0, α⋆, β⋆, M0), combined with a Gaussian UV-variability scatter σ_UV(M_h). This prescription maps the linear matter power spectrum, computed with the class_dmb Boltzmann solver including dark-matter–baryon momentum and heat exchange, into a predicted UV luminosity function. The suppression of the power spectrum from dark-matter scattering is then transferred into a suppression of galaxy counts, and MCMC sampling over both cosmological and astrophysical parameters yields the upper limits on the scattering cross-sect

Load-bearing premise

The strongest limits rely on the assumption that the halo-mass-to-UV-luminosity relation from the Thesan-Zoom simulations, with its star-formation efficiency parameters varying only within stated priors, is accurate and redshift-independent at z ≈ 8–16; if the true star-formation efficiency lies outside these priors or evolves with redshift, the inferred cross-section bounds would shift.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same JWST spectroscopic UVLF data with a model that allows the star-formation efficiency parameters (ϵ0, α⋆, β⋆, M0) and UV variability to vary independently in each redshift bin or with wider priors; if the resulting 95% C.L. upper limit on σ_{χp,-2} at mχ = 1 MeV rises above the Lyman-alpha bound (about 10^-33 cm^2), the paper's claim that JWST gives the strongest limit for 1–500 MeV would be overturned.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For dipole-like DM-proton scattering (n = -2), JWST UVLF data give the strongest 95% C.L. upper limits on the cross-section normalization for DM masses of about 1–500 MeV.
  • For velocity-independent (n = 0) and Coulomb-like (n = -4) scattering, the JWST-derived limits are competitive with, though not stronger than, existing Lyman-alpha and Milky-Way-satellite bounds.
  • DM-electron scattering limits from JWST UVLF data cover the same sub-GeV mass range and are competitive with other cosmological probes for the velocity scalings considered.
  • Marginalizing over star-formation parameters makes the limits robust to the specific choice of astrophysical modeling within the adopted priors, and the posterior star-formation efficiency is consistent with the simulation-calibrated best-fit values.
  • The top-hat filter used for the halo mass function yields conservative limits, since alternative sharp-k or smooth-k filters would predict even lower UVLFs for a given cross-section.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to allow the star-formation efficiency parameters to evolve with redshift, which would directly test whether the claimed strongest limit for n = -2 depends on the assumption of a redshift-independent galaxy-halo connection.
  • If future JWST samples extend to fainter magnitudes or higher redshifts, the sensitivity for n = 0 and n = -4 cases should improve, potentially making JWST the leading probe for those velocity scalings as well.
  • The same likelihood framework could be applied to other small-scale structure observables, such as the 21-cm power spectrum or galaxy clustering at high redshift, to cross-check the JWST-based limits without relying on a single galaxy-formation prescription.
  • The fact that JWST sees an overabundance of bright galaxies means that any dark-matter interaction that suppresses structure formation is doubly penalized: it must not only match the standard model but also preserve the observed excess, which is why the v^-2 case becomes so tightly constrained.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives 95% C.L. upper limits on the normalization of dark-matter–baryon elastic scattering cross sections, parametrized as σ_{χB,n} = σ_n v^n with n = 0, −2, −4, using JWST spectroscopic UV luminosity function (UVLF) measurements at z ≈ 8–16. The analysis computes the linear matter power spectrum with a modified CLASS code, constructs the halo mass function with a Sheth–Tormen fit and a top-hat filter, maps halo mass to UV magnitude using the Thesan-Zoom star-formation efficiency model, and performs MCMC over cosmological and astrophysical nuisance parameters. The authors report that for DM–proton scattering with n = −2 the JWST UVLF data provide the strongest existing limits for m_χ ≈ 1–500 MeV, and that the other interaction cases give competitive limits.

Significance. If the headline result is robust, this is a valuable new probe: it would show that JWST galaxy abundances can constrain non-gravitational DM interactions and open a previously unexplored observational window. The analysis is clearly structured, uses standard public tools (CLASS, MontePython, Gallumi), specifies the Boltzmann equations and likelihood in the Supplemental Material, and is conservative in several choices, notably the top-hat filter. The marginalization over astrophysical nuisance parameters is a genuine strength. The significance is conditional, however, because the central ‘strongest limit’ claim rests on a redshift-independent star-formation-efficiency model whose redshift evolution and prior boundaries are not tested.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model for the UV luminosity function, Eqs. (2)–(4); Table A1] The mapping from halo mass to UV luminosity is the most load-bearing step for the headline n = −2 limit. The model fixes the SFE parameters in Eq. (2) and the UV variability in Eq. (4) to be redshift-independent, and the text states this explicitly: ‘Our astrophysical model is taken to be independent of z, so the entire z-dependence in UVLF arises from the HMF.’ The JWST data span z ≈ 8–16, and the paper itself cites FirstLight simulations (Ref. [41]) finding a redshift-dependent galaxy formation efficiency over z = 5–13. Marginalizing over the z-independent priors in Table A1 cannot absorb a redshift-dependent shift in the M_UV–M_h relation; it only selects an average. Since the ‘strongest limit’ claim depends on the relative ordering of curves that need not be widely separated, I request a sensitivity test: either allow the SFE parameters (or a subset) to evolve with redshift, or perfo
  2. [End Matter, Eq. (A1)] The likelihood treats each binned UVLF measurement as Gaussian with asymmetric errors. At the highest redshifts the spectroscopic sample is extremely sparse — the z ≈ 14 bin contains a single confirmed galaxy (MoM-z14) — and Poisson fluctuations are non-negligible. A Gaussian likelihood can underestimate the variance in low-count bins and therefore overstate the constraining power of the most distant data points, which are important for the inferred DM-mass dependence. Please quantify the impact of replacing Eq. (A1) with a Poisson or low-count likelihood, or justify the Gaussian approximation from the published error bars. If the limits shift by more than the separation between the JWST curve and the comparison curves in Fig. 1, the ‘strongest limit’ claim needs qualification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Introduction] The paper repeatedly refers to ‘DM–baryon’ scattering but includes electrons as targets (B ∈ {e, p}). Electrons are leptons, not baryons. The terminology should be changed to ‘DM–SM’ or ‘DM–baryon/lepton’ scattering where appropriate.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S13)] The DM temperature evolution equation appears to contain a typo: the DM–baryon heat-exchange term should depend on T_b − T_χ, not T_γ − T_χ. Please check the equation and its consistency with the CLASS implementation.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the green shaded region is ‘ruled out,’ but the plotted object is the 95% upper-limit line. Please state explicitly that the excluded region is above the line.
  4. [Conclusions / Note added] Ref. [250], which appeared while this work was being finalized, uses a similar approach with HST UVLF data. A sentence comparing datasets and limits would help the reader assess the incremental contribution of the JWST spectroscopic data used here.
  5. [End Matter, Table A1] The prior on Ω_χ is U[0, 0.3], but the analysis assumes 100% interacting dark matter. Please state explicitly whether a lower interacting-DM fraction would weaken the limits, since this is not tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DM-baryon cross-section is a free parameter constrained by a forward UVLF model and marginalized over astrophysical nuisance parameters.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained forward-model inference. The interaction cross-section sigma_n^{chi B} is a free parameter in the modified CLASS Boltzmann solver (Eqs. S7-S14), which changes P(k); P(k) enters the HMF through sigma^2(R) (Eq. S19), and the UVLF is computed from the HMF and the Thesan-Zoom galaxy-halo connection (Eqs. 2-4, 3). The JWST UVLF likelihood (Eq. A1) then jointly constrains sigma and the astrophysical nuisance parameters, and the reported 95% limits are obtained by marginalizing the posterior over those nuisance parameters. There is no equation in which sigma is defined in terms of the UVLF, nor is the UVLF prediction constructed from the same fitted cross-section in a way that makes the limit equal to its input. The Thesan-Zoom SFE model is an external simulation-based input, not an output of this paper; the paper explicitly marginalizes over its parameters rather than fixing them, so the SFE is not a fitted quantity masquerading as a prediction. The z-independence of the SFE and the prior boundaries are robustness/correctness concerns about external assumptions, not circular reductions. The few self-citations in the reference list (e.g., ref. [94] alongside Press-Schechter/Sheth-Tormen) are not load-bearing: the formalism and comparison limits come from external, independently established work. No circularity score above 0 is warranted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain: CLASS dmb power spectrum → Sheth-Tormen HMF with top-hat filter → Thesan-Zoom SFE → UVLF → MCMC. Free parameters are the cross-section normalization plus astrophysical/cosmological nuisance parameters; the axioms are the applicability of simulation-calibrated galaxy-formation relations to IDM cosmologies and the fixed priors. No new particles, mediators, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • log10 σχB_n (DM-baryon scattering normalization) = 95% C.L. upper limits; e.g. log10(σ_{χp,-2}/cm²)=-33.48 at mχ=1 MeV
    Target parameter constrained by the UVLF likelihood; the upper limits are the paper's main result.
  • ϵ0 (SFE normalization) = posterior ~ log10 ϵ0 ≈ -2.38 for mχ=1 MeV, n=-2, B=p
    Astrophysical nuisance marginalized over; prior range from Thesan-Zoom.
  • α* (SFE low-mass slope) = posterior 0.82^{+1.35}_{-0.64} (same case)
    Astrophysical nuisance.
  • β* (SFE high-mass slope) = posterior 0.66^{+1.31}_{-0.53}
    Astrophysical nuisance.
  • M0 (SFE turnover mass) = posterior log10 M0 = 9.28^{+1.04}_{-1.34}
    Astrophysical nuisance.
  • σUV(10^10.5 M⊙) (UV variability) = posterior 1.24^{+0.82}_{-0.84}
    Astrophysical nuisance.
  • M (SN Ia absolute magnitude) = uniform prior [-21,-18], marginalized
    Nuisance parameter from the Pantheon likelihood.
  • Ωχ (DM abundance) = uniform [0,0.3], marginalized
    Assumes 100% interacting DM; varied in MCMC.
  • Mc (SFE capping mass) = log10(Mc/M⊙)=10.5 (fixed by hand)
    Caps SFE above the Thesan-Zoom simulation range; not fitted but chosen.
  • ns, As, ωb (cosmological priors) = Gaussian priors from Planck/BBN; marginalized
    External priors; JWST UVLF cannot constrain these tightly.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Sheth-Tormen HMF with top-hat filter is valid for IDM power spectra
    Used in Eqs. (S18)-(S20); the top-hat filter is known to overpredict low-mass halos for IDM, and the paper argues this makes limits conservative.
  • domain assumption Thesan-Zoom SFE broken power law (Eq. 2) and UV variability (Eq. 4) describe the galaxy-halo connection at z≈8-16 and are redshift-independent
    Central mapping from P(k) to UVLF; parameters marginalized only within the Table A1 priors.
  • domain assumption 100% of DM is a single interacting species; DM and baryons are non-relativistic with Maxwellian velocity distributions
    Assumptions in the Supplemental Material before Eq. (S3); affects momentum and heat exchange rates.
  • domain assumption Dust correction extrapolated from Bouwens et al. [280] to z≈10 matches Thesan-Zoom
    End Matter: 'We incorporate dust corrections following an extrapolation of ref. [280]...'
  • domain assumption Fixed Planck values for θs and τ and Gaussian priors on ns, As, ωb are adequate for z≈8-16 UVLF analysis
    End Matter priors; JWST UVLF cannot constrain these tightly.
  • domain assumption SFR is proportional to halo accretion rate with fb≈0.16 and a Chabrier IMF (κUV)
    Supplemental Eqs. (S21)-(S22); standard in the literature but not derived here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32361 in / 16490 out tokens · 223082 ms · 2026-08-04T00:03:54.126078+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has discovered bright galaxies at high redshifts ($z\approx 10-14$) and various galaxy candidates extending to even higher redshifts ($z\approx 15-30$). Many astrophysical and beyond the Standard Model physics scenarios have been proposed to explain these observations. We investigate, {\it for the first time}, the implications of dark matter (DM) scattering with baryons (protons and electrons) in light of the JWST UV luminosity function (UVLF) observations. These interactions suppress structure formation on galactic scales, which may have an observable effect on the UVLF measurements at high redshifts. Using a recent galaxy formation model designed to explain high redshift observations, we obtain strong upper limits on DM-baryon scattering cross-sections and explore new regions of the parameter space. For DM-proton scattering with cross-section $\propto v^{-2}$ velocity dependence, we obtain the strongest limit for DM masses of $\sim$ 1 -- 500 MeV. For other cases that we study (DM-proton scattering cross-section $\propto v^{0},\,v^{-4}$ and DM-electron scattering cross-section $\propto v^{0},\,v^{-2},\,v^{-4}$, our limits are competitive with those obtained from other cosmological observables. Our study highlights the potential of JWST observations as a novel and powerful probe of non-gravitational interactions of DM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02906 by Abhijeet Singh, Ranjan Laha, Ranjini Mondol, Souradeep Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. 95% C.L. upper limits on the normalization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Irreducible Constraints on Hadronically Interacting Sub-GeV Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Sub-GeV dark matter that interacts hadronically is ruled out for nucleon scattering cross sections above 10^{-36} cm² across the keV to 100 MeV mass range by combined cosmological and particle-decay constraints.

  2. Implications of \textit{SARAS3} data for Coulomb-like interacting dark matter

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    SARAS3 data sets T21 ≳ -277.6 mK at z=23.6 (3σ) in IDM models and finds no preference for IDM over CDM (Bayes factor ≈1.7).

  3. Probing inflationary features with galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function observables

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Galaxy UV luminosity function data at z=6–9 give upper limits on bump-like inflationary features at k≈0.3–20 Mpc^-1, similar to but not stronger than optical-depth constraints.

  4. Dark energy, spatial curvature, and star formation efficiency from JWST photometric and spectroscopic high-redshift galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian joint constraints show that elevated star formation efficiency accounts for JWST high-z galaxy excess in flat Lambda CDM, without requiring deviations in dark energy equation of state or curvature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

261 extracted references · 210 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Castellano, A

    M. Castellano, A. Fontana, T. Treu, P. Santini, E. Merlin, N. Leethochawalit et al.,Early Results from GLASS-JWST. III. Galaxy Candidates at z 9-15, ApJ 938(Oct., 2022) L15, [2207.09436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    S. L. Finkelstein, M. B. Bagley, P. Arrabal Haro, M. Dickinson, H. C. Ferguson, J. S. Kartaltepe et al., A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: A Candidate z∼12 Galaxy in Early JWST CEERS Imaging, ApJ940(Dec., 2022) L55, [2207.12474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    R. P. Naidu, P. A. Oesch, D. J. Setton, J. Matthee, C. Conroy, B. D. Johnson et al.,Schrodinger’s Galaxy Candidate: Puzzlingly Luminous atz≈17, or Dusty/Quenched atz≈5?,arXiv e-prints(Aug.,

  4. [4]

    H. Atek, M. Shuntov, L. J. Furtak, J. Richard, J.-P. Kneib, G. Mahler et al.,Revealing galaxy candidates out to z 16 with JWST observations of the lensing cluster SMACS0723, MNRAS519(Feb., 2023) 1201–1220, [2207.12338]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    C. T. Donnan, D. J. McLeod, J. S. Dunlop, R. J. McLure, A. C. Carnall, R. Begley et al.,The evolution of the galaxy UV luminosity function at redshifts z≃8 - 15 from deep JWST and ground-based near-infrared imaging, MNRAS518(Feb., 2023) 6011–6040, [2207.12356]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Harikane, M

    Y. Harikane, M. Ouchi, M. Oguri, Y. Ono, K. Nakajima, Y. Isobe et al.,A Comprehensive Study of Galaxies at z 9-16 Found in the Early JWST Data: Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History at the Pre-reionization Epoch, ApJS265(Mar., 2023) 5, [2208.01612]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    H. Yan, Z. Ma, C. Ling, C. Cheng and J.-S. Huang, First Batch of z≈11-20 Candidate Objects Revealed by the James Webb Space Telescope Early Release Observations on SMACS 0723-73, ApJ942(Jan.,

  8. [8]

    B. E. Robertson, S. Tacchella, B. D. Johnson, K. Hainline, L. Whitler, D. J. Eisenstein et al., Identification and properties of intense star-forming galaxies at redshifts z ¿ 10,Nature Astronomy7(May,

  9. [10]

    R. J. Bouwens, M. Stefanon, G. Brammer, P. A. Oesch, T. Herard-Demanche, G. D. Illingworth et al., Evolution of the UV LF from z 15 to z 8 using new JWST NIRCam medium-band observations over the HUDF/XDF, MNRAS523(July, 2023) 1036–1055, [2211.02607]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [11]

    K. N. Hainline, B. D. Johnson, B. Robertson, S. Tacchella, J. M. Helton, F. Sun et al.,The Cosmos in Its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z ¿ 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N, ApJ964(Mar., 2024) 71, [2306.02468]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [12]

    Harikane,Early galaxies and supermassive black holes discovered by the James webb space telescope, Ap&SS370(Aug., 2025) 85

    Y. Harikane,Early galaxies and supermassive black holes discovered by the James webb space telescope, Ap&SS370(Aug., 2025) 85

    2025

  12. [13]

    Roberts-Borsani, P

    G. Roberts-Borsani, P. Oesch, R. Ellis, A. Weibel, E. Giovinazzo, R. Bouwens et al.,JWST Spectroscopic Insights Into the Diversity of Galaxies in the First 500 Myr: Short-Lived Snapshots Along a Common Evolutionary Pathway,arXiv e-prints(Aug., 2025) arXiv:2508.21708, [2508.21708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [14]

    de la Vega, B

    A. de la Vega, B. Mobasher, F. Manesh, N. Sharei, N. Chartab and Z. Sattari,The Fraction of Clumpy Galaxies in JWST Surveys over2< z <12,arXiv e-prints(Aug., 2025) arXiv:2508.14972, [2508.14972]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    Matthee, R

    J. Matthee, R. P. Naidu, G. Kotiwale, L. J. Furtak, I. Kramarenko, R. Mackenzie et al.,Environmental Evidence for Overly Massive Black Holes in Low-mass Galaxies and a Black Hole–Halo Mass Relation at z∼ 5, ApJ988(Aug., 2025) 246, [2412.02846]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [16]

    M. Tang, D. P. Stark, C. A. Mason, V. Gelli, Z. Chen and M. W. Topping,The JWST Spectroscopic Properties of Galaxies atz= 9−14,arXiv e-prints (July, 2025) arXiv:2507.08245, [2507.08245]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    X. Ji, V. Belokurov, R. Maiolino, S. Monty, Y. Isobe, A. Kravtsov et al.,Connecting JWST discovered N/O-enhanced galaxies to globular clusters: Evidence from chemical imprints,arXiv e-prints(May, 2025) arXiv:2505.12505, [2505.12505]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    Rojas-Ruiz, M

    S. Rojas-Ruiz, M. Bagley, G. Roberts-Borsani, T. Treu, S. L. Finkelstein, T. Morishita et al.,The BoRG-JWST Survey: Abundance and Mass-to-light Ratio of Luminous z = 7–9 Galaxies from Independent Sight Lines with NIRSpec, ApJ985(May, 2025) 80, [2408.00843]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    R. P. Naidu, P. A. Oesch, G. Brammer, A. Weibel, Y. Li, J. Matthee et al.,A Cosmic Miracle: A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy atz spec = 14.44 Confirmed with JWST,arXiv e-prints(May, 2025) arXiv:2505.11263, [2505.11263]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Kokorev, H

    V. Kokorev, H. Atek, J. Chisholm, R. Endsley, I. Chemerynska, J. B. Mu˜ noz et al.,A Glimpse of the New Redshift Frontier through AS1063, ApJ983 (Apr., 2025) L22, [2411.13640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    Castellano, A

    M. Castellano, A. Fontana, E. Merlin, P. Santini, L. Napolitano, N. Menci et al.,Pushing JWST to the extremes: search and scrutiny of bright galaxy candidates at z≃15-30,arXiv e-prints(Apr., 2025) arXiv:2504.05893, [2504.05893]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Whitler, D

    L. Whitler, D. P. Stark, M. W. Topping, B. Robertson, M. Rieke, K. N. Hainline et al.,Thezrsim9galaxy UV luminosity function from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey: insights into early galaxy evolution and reionization,arXiv e-prints(Jan., 2025) arXiv:2501.00984, [2501.00984]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    N. J. Adams, C. J. Conselice, L. Ferreira, D. Austin, J. A. A. Trussler, I. Juodˇ zbalis et al.,Discovery and properties of ultra-high redshift galaxies (9 ¡ z ¡ 12) in the JWST ERO SMACS 0723 Field, MNRAS518 (Jan., 2023) 4755–4766, [2207.11217]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [24]

    Harikane, K

    Y. Harikane, K. Nakajima, M. Ouchi, H. Umeda, Y. Isobe, Y. Ono et al.,Pure Spectroscopic Constraints on UV Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History from 25 Galaxies at z spec = 8.61-13.20 Confirmed with JWST/NIRSpec, ApJ960 (Jan., 2024) 56, [2304.06658]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [26]

    Curtis-Lake, S

    E. Curtis-Lake, S. Carniani, A. Cameron, S. Charlot, P. Jakobsen, R. Maiolino et al.,Spectroscopic confirmation of four metal-poor galaxies at z = 10.3-13.2,Nature Astronomy7(May, 2023) 622–632, [2212.04568]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [27]

    D’Eugenio, R

    F. D’Eugenio, R. Maiolino, S. Carniani, J. Chevallard, E. Curtis-Lake, J. Witstok et al.,JADES: Carbon enrichment 350 Myr after the Big Bang, A&A689 (Sept., 2024) A152, [2311.09908]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [28]

    Carniani, K

    S. Carniani, K. Hainline, F. D’Eugenio, D. J. Eisenstein, P. Jakobsen, J. Witstok et al.,Spectroscopic confirmation of two luminous galaxies at a redshift of 14, Nature633(Sept., 2024) 318–322, [2405.18485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [29]

    T. J. L. C. Bakx, J. A. Zavala, I. Mitsuhashi, T. Treu, A. Fontana, K.-i. Tadaki et al.,Deep ALMA redshift search of a z∼12 GLASS-JWST galaxy candidate, MNRAS519(Mar., 2023) 5076–5085, [2208.13642]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [30]

    Castellano, L

    M. Castellano, L. Napolitano, A. Fontana, G. Roberts-Borsani, T. Treu, E. Vanzella et al.,JWST NIRSpec Spectroscopy of the Remarkable Bright Galaxy GHZ2/GLASS-z12 at Redshift 12.34, ApJ972(Sept.,

  29. [31]

    J. A. Zavala, M. Castellano, H. B. Akins, T. J. L. C. Bakx, D. Burgarella, C. M. Casey et al.,A luminous and young galaxy at z = 12.33 revealed by a JWST/MIRI detection of Hαand [O III],Nature Astronomy(Oct., 2024) , [2403.10491]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [32]

    Fujimoto, B

    S. Fujimoto, B. Wang, J. Weaver, V. Kokorev, H. Atek, R. Bezanson et al.,UNCOVER: A NIRSpec Census of Lensed Galaxies at z=8.50-13.08 Probing a High AGN Fraction and Ionized Bubbles in the Shadow,arXiv e-prints(Aug., 2023) arXiv:2308.11609, [2308.11609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [33]

    B. Wang, S. Fujimoto, I. Labb´ e, L. J. Furtak, T. B. Miller, D. J. Setton et al.,UNCOVER: Illuminating the Early Universe-JWST/NIRSpec Confirmation of z ¿ 12 Galaxies, ApJ957(Nov., 2023) L34, [2308.03745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [34]

    Harikane, A

    Y. Harikane, A. K. Inoue, R. S. Ellis, M. Ouchi, Y. Nakazato, N. Yoshida et al.,JWST, ALMA, and Keck Spectroscopic Constraints on the UV Luminosity Functions at z∼7–14: Clumpiness and Compactness of the Brightest Galaxies in the Early Universe, ApJ 980(Feb., 2025) 138, [2406.18352]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    Roberts-Borsani, T

    G. Roberts-Borsani, T. Treu, A. Shapley, A. Fontana, L. Pentericci, M. Castellano et al.,Between the Extremes: A JWST Spectroscopic Benchmark for High-redshift Galaxies Using∼500 Confirmed Sources at z≥5, ApJ976(Dec., 2024) 193, [2403.07103]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [36]

    Boylan-Kolchin,Stress testingΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates,Nature Astron.7 (2023) 731–735, [2208.01611]

    M. Boylan-Kolchin,Stress testingΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates,Nature Astron.7 (2023) 731–735, [2208.01611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [37]

    R. K. Cochrane, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, F. Cullen and C. C. Hayward,Disappearing Galaxies: The Orientation Dependence of JWST-bright, HST-dark, Star-forming Galaxy Selection, ApJ961(Jan., 2024) 37, [2310.08829]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [38]

    Z. Li, A. Dekel, K. C. Sarkar, H. Aung, M. Giavalisco, N. Mandelker et al.,Feedback-free starbursts at cosmic dawn: Observable predictions for JWST, A&A690 (Oct., 2024) A108, [2311.14662]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [39]

    Sun, C.-A

    G. Sun, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere and J. Stern,A Turbulent Framework for Star Formation in High-Redshift Galaxies,arXiv e-prints(Aug., 2025) arXiv:2508.04768, [2508.04768]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    Z. L. Andalman, R. Teyssier and A. Dekel,On the origin of the high star formation efficiency in massive galaxies at Cosmic Dawn, MNRAS540(July, 2025) 3350–3383, [2410.20530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [41]

    Ceverino, Y

    D. Ceverino, Y. Nakazato, N. Yoshida, R. S. Klessen and S. C. O. Glover,Redshift-dependent galaxy formation efficiency at z = 5 - 13 in the FirstLight Simulations, A&A689(Sept., 2024) A244, [2404.02537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Dekel, K

    A. Dekel, K. C. Sarkar, Y. Birnboim, N. Mandelker and Z. Li,Efficient formation of massive galaxies at cosmic dawn by feedback-free starbursts, MNRAS523 (Aug., 2023) 3201–3218, [2303.04827]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [43]

    S. M. Fall, M. R. Krumholz and C. D. Matzner,Stellar Feedback in Molecular Clouds and its Influence on the Mass Function of Young Star Clusters, ApJ710(Feb.,

  42. [44]

    T. A. Thompson and M. R. Krumholz,Sub-Eddington star-forming regions are super-Eddington: momentum-driven outflows from supersonic turbulence, MNRAS455(Jan., 2016) 334–342, [1411.1769]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [46]

    E. R. Cueto, A. Hutter, P. Dayal, S. Gottl¨ ober, K. E. Heintz, C. Mason et al.,ASTRAEUS. IX. Impact of an evolving stellar initial mass function on early galaxies and reionisation, A&A686(June, 2024) A138, [2312.12109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [47]

    Trinca, R

    A. Trinca, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, L. Graziani, A. Ferrotti, K. Omukai et al.,Exploring the nature of UV-bright z≳10 galaxies detected by JWST: star formation, black hole accretion, or a non-universal IMF?, MNRAS529(Apr., 2024) 3563–3581, [2305.04944]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [48]

    S. H. Menon, L. Lancaster, B. Burkhart, R. S. Somerville, A. Dekel and M. R. Krumholz,The Interplay between the Initial Mass Function and Star Formation Efficiency through Radiative Feedback at High Stellar Surface Densities, ApJ967(June, 2024) L28, [2405.00813]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [49]

    Sun, C.-A

    G. Sun, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, C. C. Hayward, X. Shen, A. Wetzel and R. K. Cochrane,Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn, ApJ955(Oct., 2023) L35, [2307.15305]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [50]

    Sun, C.-A

    G. Sun, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, C. C. Hayward and X. Shen,Seen and unseen: bursty star formation and its implications for observations of high-redshift galaxies with JWST, MNRAS526(Dec., 2023) 2665–2672, [2305.02713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [51]

    Kokorev, ´O

    V. Kokorev, ´O. A. Ch´ avez Ortiz, A. J. Taylor, S. L. Finkelstein, P. Arrabal Haro, M. Dickinson et al., CAPERS Observations of Two UV-bright Galaxies at z ¿ 10. More Evidence for Bursting Star Formation in 8 the Early Universe, ApJ988(July, 2025) L10, [2504.12504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [52]

    Chworowsky, S

    K. Chworowsky, S. L. Finkelstein, M. Boylan-Kolchin, E. J. McGrath, K. G. Iyer, C. Papovich et al., Evidence for a Shallow Evolution in the Volume Densities of Massive Galaxies at z = 4–8 from CEERS, AJ168(Sept., 2024) 113, [2311.14804]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [53]

    J. W. Cole, C. Papovich, S. L. Finkelstein, M. B. Bagley, M. Dickinson, K. G. Iyer et al.,CEERS: Increasing Scatter along the Star-forming Main Sequence Indicates Early Galaxies Form in Bursts, ApJ979(Feb., 2025) 193, [2312.10152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [54]

    Endsley, D

    R. Endsley, D. P. Stark, L. Whitler, M. W. Topping, B. D. Johnson, B. Robertson et al.,The star-forming and ionizing properties of dwarf z 6-9 galaxies in JADES: insights on bursty star formation and ionized bubble growth, MNRAS533(Sept., 2024) 1111–1142, [2306.05295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [55]

    T. J. Looser, F. D’Eugenio, R. Maiolino, S. Tacchella, M. Curti, S. Arribas et al.,JADES: Differing assembly histories of galaxies: Observational evidence for bursty star formation histories and (mini-)quenching in the first billion years of the Universe, A&A697(May,

  53. [56]

    Tacchella, B

    S. Tacchella, B. D. Johnson, B. E. Robertson, S. Carniani, F. D’Eugenio, N. Kumari et al.,JWST NIRCam + NIRSpec: interstellar medium and stellar populations of young galaxies with rising star formation and evolving gas reservoirs, MNRAS522 (July, 2023) 6236–6249, [2208.03281]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [57]

    Dressler, M

    A. Dressler, M. Rieke, D. Eisenstein, D. P. Stark, C. Burns, R. Bhatawdekar et al.,Building the First Galaxies—Chapter 2. Starbursts Dominate the Star Formation Histories of 6 ¡ z ¡ 12 Galaxies, ApJ964 (Apr., 2024) 150, [2306.02469]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [58]

    J. M. Helton, G. H. Rieke, S. Alberts, Z. Wu, D. J. Eisenstein, K. N. Hainline et al.,Photometric detection at 7.7µm of a galaxy beyond redshift 14 with JWST/MIRI,Nature Astronomy9(May, 2025) 729–740, [2405.18462]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [59]

    Fakhry, M

    S. Fakhry, M. Shiravand and A. Del Popolo,Matching JWST UV Luminosity Functions with RefinedLCDM Halo Models,arXiv e-prints(Oct., 2025) arXiv:2510.04709, [2510.04709]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [60]

    X. Shen, O. Zier, M. Vogelsberger, M. Boylan-Kolchin, L. Hernquist, S. Tacchella et al.,The Cosmic Rush Hour: Rapid Formation of Bright, Massive, Disky, Star-Forming Galaxies as Signatures of Early-Universe Physics,arXiv e-prints(Sept., 2025) arXiv:2509.19427, [2509.19427]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [61]

    Fakhry, R

    S. Fakhry, R. Vojoudi Salmani and J. T. Firouzjaee, High-redshift Galaxies from JWST Observations in More Realistic Dark Matter Halo Models,arXiv e-prints(July, 2025) arXiv:2507.23742, [2507.23742]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    Kragh Jespersen, C

    C. Kragh Jespersen, C. L. Steinhardt, R. S. Somerville and C. C. Lovell,On the Significance of Rare Objects at High Redshift: The Impact of Cosmic Variance, arXiv e-prints(Feb., 2024) arXiv:2403.00050, [2403.00050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [63]

    Tacchella,Star formation in cosmic-dawn galaxies, Scripta Varia 155155(Jan., 2025) 95, [2410.04227]

    S. Tacchella,Star formation in cosmic-dawn galaxies, Scripta Varia 155155(Jan., 2025) 95, [2410.04227]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [64]

    Harvey, C

    T. Harvey, C. J. Conselice, N. J. Adams, D. Austin, I. Juodˇ zbalis, J. Trussler et al.,EPOCHS. IV. SED Modeling Assumptions and Their Impact on the Stellar Mass Function at 6.5≤z≤13.5 Using PEARLS and Public JWST Observations, ApJ978(Jan., 2025) 89, [2403.03908]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [65]

    Nakazato and A

    Y. Nakazato and A. Ferrara,Radiation-driven dusty outflows from early galaxies,arXiv e-prints(Dec.,

  63. [66]

    S. S. Binici, C. Deliduman and F. S ¸. Dilsiz,The ages of the oldest astrophysical objects in an ellipsoidal universe,Physics of the Dark Universe46(Dec., 2024) 101600, [2402.16646]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [67]

    Huang, J.-Q

    H.-L. Huang, J.-Q. Jiang and Y.-S. Piao,High-redshift JWST massive galaxies and the initial clustering of supermassive primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D110 (Nov., 2024) 103540, [2407.15781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [68]

    Y.-Y. Wang, L. Lei, S.-P. Tang, G.-W. Yuan and Y.-Z. Fan,Digging into the Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions of Galaxies at High Redshifts: Galaxies Evolution, Reionization, and Cosmological Parameters, ApJ975 (Nov., 2024) 285, [2405.09350]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [69]

    Matsumoto, Y

    T. Matsumoto, Y. Harikane, K. Maeda and K. Ioka, Probing the Origin of the Star Formation Excess Discovered by JWST through Gamma-Ray Bursts, ApJ 976(Nov., 2024) L16, [2409.11468]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [70]

    Driskell, E

    T. Driskell, E. O. Nadler, A. Benson and V. Gluscevic, Population synthesis and astrophysical inference for high-zJWST galaxies,arXiv e-prints(Oct., 2024) arXiv:2410.11680, [2410.11680]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [71]

    Nusser,High-redshift Halo–Galaxy Connection via Constrained Simulations, ApJ974(Oct., 2024) 27, [2402.18942]

    A. Nusser,High-redshift Halo–Galaxy Connection via Constrained Simulations, ApJ974(Oct., 2024) 27, [2402.18942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [72]

    Ito and K

    M. Ito and K. Omukai,First star formation in extremely early epochs, PASJ76(Aug., 2024) 850–862, [2405.10073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [73]

    Libanore, J

    S. Libanore, J. Flitter, E. D. Kovetz, Z. Li and A. Dekel,Effects of feedback-free starburst galaxies on the 21-cm signal and reionization history, MNRAS 532(July, 2024) 149–163, [2310.03021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [74]

    Chakraborty and T

    A. Chakraborty and T. R. Choudhury,Modelling the star-formation activity and ionizing properties of high-redshift galaxies, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024(July, 2024) 078, [2404.02879]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [75]

    Chemerynska, H

    I. Chemerynska, H. Atek, L. J. Furtak, A. Zitrin, J. E. Greene, P. Dayal et al.,JWST UNCOVER: the overabundance of ultraviolet-luminous galaxies at z ¿ 9, MNRAS531(June, 2024) 2615–2625, [2312.05030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [76]

    Iocco and L

    F. Iocco and L. Visinelli,Compatibility of JWST results with exotic halos,Physics of the Dark Universe 44(May, 2024) 101496, [2403.13068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [77]

    Ferrara,Super-early JWST galaxies, outflows, and Lyαvisibility in the Epoch of Reionization, A&A684 (Apr., 2024) A207, [2310.12197]

    A. Ferrara,Super-early JWST galaxies, outflows, and Lyαvisibility in the Epoch of Reionization, A&A684 (Apr., 2024) A207, [2310.12197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [78]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    J.-C. Wang, Z.-Q. Huang, L. Huang and J. Liu, Quantifying the Tension between Cosmological Models and JWST Red Candidate Massive Galaxies,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics24(Apr., 2024) 045001, [2311.02866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [79]

    Glazebrook, T

    K. Glazebrook, T. Nanayakkara, C. Schreiber, C. Lagos, L. Kawinwanichakij, C. Jacobs et al.,A massive galaxy that formed its stars at z≈11, Nature 628(Apr., 2024) 277–281, [2308.05606]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [80]

    B. Wang, J. Leja, H. Atek, I. Labb´ e, Y. Li, R. Bezanson et al.,Quantifying the Effects of Known Unknowns on Inferred High-redshift Galaxy Properties: Burstiness, IMF, and Nebular Physics, ApJ963 9 (Mar., 2024) 74, [2310.06781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [81]

    E. M. Ventura, Y. Qin, S. Balu and J. S. B. Wyithe, Semi-analytic modelling of Pop. III star formation and metallicity evolution - I. Impact on the UV luminosity functions at z = 9-16, MNRAS529(Mar., 2024) 628–646, [2401.07396]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [82]

    Y. Qin, S. Balu and J. S. B. Wyithe,Implications of z ≳12 JWST galaxies for galaxy formation at high redshift, MNRAS526(Nov., 2023) 1324–1342, [2305.17959]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [83]

    Forconi, Ruchika, A

    M. Forconi, Ruchika, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena and N. Menci,Do the early galaxies observed by JWST disagree with Planck’s CMB polarization measurements?, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023 (Oct., 2023) 012, [2306.07781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.