Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 108 references

The AURORA Survey: Robust Helium Abundances at High Redshift Reveal A Subpopulation of Helium-Enhanced Galaxies in the Early Universe

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the near-infrared He I λ10833 line in JWST/NIRSpec spectra, this paper derives the first reliable helium abundances in 20 galaxies at redshifts 1.6–3.3 and finds four with excess helium but no matching nitrogen enhancement.

desk verdict First credible high-redshift He abundances from AURORA, with a genuinely new λ10833-based method; the He-enhanced subpopulation is a promising lead that the current error budget does not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17057 v1 pith:AHWISJFO submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.GA

Danielle A. Berg , Ryan L. Sanders , Alice E. Shapley , Michael W. Topping , Naveen A. Reddy , Evan D. Skillman , Erik Aver , Fergus Cullen
show 11 more authors
Callum T. Donnan James S. Dunlop Tucker Jones Ali Ahmad Khostovan Derek J. McLeod Desika Narayanan Pascal A. Oesch Anthony J. Pahl Max Pettini N. M. Förster Schreiber Daniel P. Stark
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords heliumabundancehigh-redshiftgalaxieschemicalevolutionJWSTNIRSpecHIIregionsglobularclusterprogenitorsverymassivestars
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

This paper reports the first reliable helium abundance measurements in star-forming galaxies at redshifts $1.6$ to $3.3$, based on deep JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy from the AURORA survey. Most of the 20 galaxies in the sample sit on the same helium–oxygen enrichment trend seen in nearby metal-poor dwarf galaxies, so helium enrichment by cosmic noon was already underway but modest. Four galaxies, roughly a fifth of the sample, lie above that trend with helium mass fractions elevated by $\Delta Y>0.03$ at fixed oxygen abundance. Because those same galaxies show ordinary nitrogen and $\alpha$-element abundances, the authors argue that the extra helium was produced early by very massive stars rather than by slow asymptotic-giant-branch enrichment, and they speculate that the systems could be caught in an early phase of globular cluster formation. If the claim holds, helium lines become a fresh tracer of the earliest stellar enrichment pathways at the peak epoch of galaxy formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the He I $\lambda10833$ line, the strongest helium recombination line in the rest-frame optical/near-infrared and the one most sensitive to electron density through collisional excitation from the metastable $2{}^3S$ level. Including it breaks the degeneracies among temperature, density, optical depth, and He$^+$/H$^+$ that have historically limited extragalactic helium measurements. The paper's custom MCMC framework fits up to eight He I/H$\beta$ ratios simultaneously using expanded radiative-transfer grids that reach $n_e = 10^6\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ and $\tau_{\lambda3890}$ up to 15, with a Gaussian temperature prior from the measured [O III] electron temperature, and it derives the final helium mass fraction after adding any He$^{++}$ contribution and converting through the adopted yield formula.

What would settle it

For the four outlier galaxies, obtain an independent electron-density constraint from the C III] or [Ar IV] doublets and refit the He I lines with that density fixed; if all four inferred helium excesses drop below $\Delta Y=0.03$, the subpopulation is an artifact of the density–optical-depth degeneracy. A complementary test is to measure the same He I line set in nearby galaxies at oxygen abundances $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})\approx8.2$–$8.3$ and see whether the local reference trend itself holds there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that reliable helium abundances can now be measured at $z\sim2$–$3$, and that doing so reveals a two-part population. Using up to eight He I recombination lines, including the density-sensitive near-infrared $\lambda10833$ line, a custom MCMC code fits electron temperature, electron density, optical depth at $\lambda3890$, and He$^+$/H$^+$ simultaneously, anchored by a direct-method temperature prior. Most of the 20 galaxies follow the extrapolated local helium–oxygen relation, indicating modest helium buildup by cosmic noon. Four galaxies (GOODSN-30053, COSMOS-5571, GOODSN-22384, and COSMOS-4740) show $\Delta Y>0.03$ above that relation without corresponding nitrogen or $\alpha$-element enhancement, an abundance pattern the authors attribute to helium-rich, nitrogen-poor ejecta from very massive stars ($M\gtrsim100\,M_\odot$). They further argue that these objects may be globular-cluster progenitors caught in action, before secondary nitrogen enrichment has caught up.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local relation between helium mass fraction and oxygen abundance, measured in extremely metal-poor dwarf galaxies, can be extrapolated to the higher oxygen abundances and physical conditions of galaxies at $z\sim2$–$3$; if that baseline is wrong for these systems, the $\Delta Y>0.03$ excesses would not necessarily mean real helium enhancement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most galaxies at $z\sim1.6$–$3.3$ follow the extrapolated local helium–oxygen trend, so the bulk of helium enrichment at cosmic noon was already in place by these redshifts.
  • A subpopulation of roughly one in five galaxies at these redshifts carries extra helium with normal nitrogen and $\alpha$-element abundances, which points to prompt enrichment by very massive stars and rules out AGB-dominated enrichment as the main source.
  • If these systems are globular-cluster progenitors caught early, their helium excess should eventually be accompanied by nitrogen, sodium, and aluminum enhancement and carbon depletion, providing a way to test the globular-cluster connection.
  • The inclusion of He I $\lambda10833$ is decisive for robust helium abundances; future studies at $z\gtrsim3.6$, where the line shifts out of NIRSpec's range, will need MIRI observations or independent density constraints to avoid systematic biases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the helium-enhanced subpopulation is real, the incidence of roughly 20 percent at $z\sim2$ implies that the physical process producing helium-rich, nitrogen-poor ejecta was common at cosmic noon, not a rare channel; extending this measurement to larger samples would sharpen that fraction.
  • The paper's comparison with an earlier high-redshift study suggests that helium abundances derived without $\lambda10833$ are systematically unreliable; a testable extension is to re-analyze lensed galaxies at $z\sim6$ with density-sensitive diagnostics to see whether their extreme helium values collapse to the local trend.
  • A practical selection recipe suggested by the outliers is to target galaxies with low ionization parameter, low H$\beta$ equivalent width, and otherwise normal abundance ratios; such systems may be the most efficient place to hunt for additional helium-enhanced galaxies and globular-cluster progenitors.
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. The paper presents JWST/NIRSpec rest-frame optical and near-IR spectroscopy of 20 star-forming galaxies at 1.6 ≲ z ≲ 3.3 from the AURORA survey, with multiple >5σ He I detections including λ10833. The authors build a custom MCMC framework with four free parameters (Te, ne, τλ3890, y+), a Gaussian Te([O III]) prior, and extended Benjamin et al. (2002) radiative-transfer grids up to ne = 10^6 cm^-3 and τλ3890 = 15. They derive He+/H+ and total helium mass fractions Y, compare them to the z≈0 Y–O/H trend of Aver et al. (2022), and report that most galaxies are consistent with the extrapolated local trend. Four galaxies (GOODSN-30053, COSMOS-5571, GOODSN-22384, COSMOS-4740) are identified as a helium-enhanced subpopulation with ΔY > 0.03 without corresponding N/O or α-element enhancements. The paper attributes this pattern to very massive stars and speculates that these systems are globular cluster progenitors.

Significance. If the subpopulation claim holds, this is the first robust measurement of helium abundances at cosmic noon and provides a genuinely new constraint on early stellar enrichment pathways, with potential implications for VMS yields and globular cluster formation. The methodological core is a real advance: the inclusion of λ10833, the expanded τλ3890 grids, and the careful appendix tests of priors, line inclusion, and single-line analyses are the right kind of validation. The authors are also explicit about known limitations, including the missing continuum-fit error budget and the lower-limit status of Y for η > 2 objects. However, the central subpopulation claim currently rests on statistical uncertainties alone, and the quoted ΔY values do not include two systematics—continuum-fitting errors and the y+–ne degeneracy—that are each capable of shifting ΔY by the 0.03 selection threshold. The result is scientifically interesting and likely correct in outline, but the headline claim needs additional systematic work before it can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (4), Table 4] The continuum-fitting uncertainty is not propagated into the He abundance uncertainties. The text states that “no error budget was allotted to the continuum fit, likely resulting in underestimated He I flux uncertainties,” and these line-flux uncertainties enter the MCMC likelihood through σλ in Eq. (4). The reported Y uncertainties are ~0.004–0.014, while the subpopulation threshold is ΔY > 0.03; a continuum/systematic contribution of a few percent is therefore of the same order as the selection threshold. Please either quantify the continuum systematics (for example, by perturbing the stellar-continuum or SED fits and repeating the full analysis) or demonstrate that the four outliers remain above ΔY > 0.03 under such perturbations.
  2. [§3.2, §3.3, Fig. 4, Table 3] The strong negative covariance between y+ and log ne is not included in the significance of the subpopulation. Figure 4 shows this degeneracy, §3.3 reports that the He I densities are on average 43% lower than the [S II] densities, and the four outliers have He I densities 0.3–0.7 dex below their [S II] densities (e.g., COSMOS-5571 has log ne(He I) = 1.44 ± 0.58 versus log ne([S II]) ≈ 2.20; COSMOS-4740 has 2.15±0.05 versus ≈2.86). Because the quoted y+ and Y uncertainties are statistical only, a density shift of ~0.2–0.3 dex toward the [S II]-based value—or toward the higher C III]-inferred densities mentioned in §3.3—could reduce ΔY below 0.03 for some of the four objects. Please run the MCMC with an external density prior or explicitly marginalize over a density offset, and report how many of the four outliers survive. The Appendix A.4 single-line tests support only three of the four galaxies; COSMOS-5571’s λ6680-based ΔY is low, and the λ4473-based check mentioned in §5.1 is not shown quantitatively.
  3. [§4.1, §4.2, Fig. 6] The “subpopulation” is defined against an extrapolated z≈0 relation without a statistical test for bimodality or for outliers under a plausible null model. The AURORA-only Y–O/H correlation is insignificant (r = 0.14, p = 0.56), and the Milky Way H II region measurements at similar O/H lie below both the AURORA sample and the Aver et al. (2022) trend, which the paper attributes to MW underestimation. If the local Y–O/H slope or zero point is different at 12+log(O/H) ≈ 8.2–8.3, the ΔY > 0.03 classification would change. Please add a significance test for a distinct subpopulation (e.g., a mixture model or a bootstrap under the null of a single trend with scatter) and show the sensitivity of the four outliers to the assumed reference relation.
  4. [§3.4, Table 4, Fig. 6] The comparison to the Aver et al. (2022) trend mixes total abundances with lower limits. Eleven of the 20 galaxies, including all four He-enhanced outliers, have η > 2 and are flagged as lower limits because no He0 correction is applied. While the missing He0 correction would increase Y and thus strengthen the enhancement of the outliers, it also means that the statement that “most AURORA galaxies follow the extrapolated z∼0 trend” is not directly testable for a large fraction of the sample. Please either apply a quantitative He0 ICF for the η > 2 objects or explicitly state how the lower-limit status affects the fraction of galaxies above the trend and the derived ΔY values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] There is a duplicated sentence: the text about He I λ5017 and λ7283 being excluded due to Case B departures appears twice verbatim.
  2. [§2.4, Table 3] Section 2.4 states the sample was selected to have at least six >5σ He I detections, but Table 3 lists three galaxies (COSMOS-4156, GOODSN-30053, COSMOS-5571) with only five such detections. Please clarify the selection criterion and make the text and table consistent.
  3. [§4.2] In the list of He-enhanced galaxies, “GOODSN-5571” should be “COSMOS-5571” to match Table 3 and Table 4.
  4. [§2.2] The line list includes “λ127881,” which appears to be a typo; given the context this should be the He I λ12788 line.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says “∆Yλ6680, inferred from the HeI λ6680 line only, is plotted versus ∆Yλ5877, inferred using the He I λ6680 line only”; the second clause should refer to λ5877.
  6. [§5.1] The description of Figure 7 (“both 4740 and 22384 lie close to the 1-to-1 line”) is confusing because the axes are ∆Yλ5877 and ∆Yλ6680, not a direct comparison to the multi-line ∆Y; please clarify what the 1-to-1 line represents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: He abundances are derived from line-ratio fits with independent Te priors, and the z~0 comparison trend is external data despite author overlap.

full rationale

Detailed inspection of the derivation chain shows no circular step. Helium abundances are obtained by fitting observed He I/Hβ ratios to radiative-transfer emissivity grids (Porter et al. 2012/2013; Benjamin et al. 2002) via Eq. 3, with y+ as a free parameter and a Gaussian Te prior from independent [O III] λ4363/λ5007 measurements (§3.2). The Te prior is physically motivated (§A.1) and not chosen to force the Y–O/H result; the paper explicitly tests no-prior and ne-prior configurations, which bracket the adopted values. The comparison baseline (Aver et al. 2022) is an external measurement of local extremely metal-poor dwarf galaxies, not a fit to AURORA data, so the outliers (ΔY > 0.03) are residuals against an independent empirical trend rather than by-construction features. The self-citations (Aver, Berg, Skillman, Sanders, etc.) concern methodology and prior data that are externally reproducible; no uniqueness theorem or unverified premise is imported. The paper candidly flags two limitations that affect significance but not circularity: no error budget for continuum fits (§3.2, 'likely resulting in underestimated He I flux uncertainties') and neglected He0 corrections for η ≥ 2 galaxies, with those Y values stated as lower limits (§3.4). These caveats weaken the outlier claim but do not reduce the helium derivation to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements rest on standard nebular physics plus several domain assumptions: the temperature prior, the continuum-absorption treatment, the neutral helium treatment, and the extrapolated local Y-O/H baseline. No new particles or forces are introduced. The per-galaxy MCMC parameters (Te, ne, tau3890, y+) are fitted to the line ratios; they are the measurement, not free constants tuned to match the subpopulation claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Electron temperature Te(He I) per galaxy = 8700-14900 K (Table 3)
    Fitted simultaneously with y+; constrained by a Gaussian prior from Te([O III]) because He I lines are weakly temperature-sensitive.
  • Electron density ne(He I) per galaxy = log ne = 1.44-2.74 cm^-3 (Table 3)
    Fitted from density-sensitive He I lines, especially 10833; strongly covariant with y+.
  • Optical depth tau_3890 per galaxy = 0.21-4.36 (Table 3)
    Fitted from radiative-transfer-sensitive triplet lines; degenerate with ne.
  • Ionic helium abundance y+ = He+/H+ per galaxy = 0.078-0.113 (Table 3)
    The measured quantity; the central claim is the distribution of y+ and the resulting helium mass fractions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Te([O III]) is a valid prior for the temperature of the He+ emitting gas.
    The He I lines are weakly temperature-sensitive, and without this prior the MCMC returns poorly constrained, biased-high Te values (Appendix A.1). The paper adopts this from local-universe practice (Peimbert et al. 2007, 2016). Entered in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Stellar H I and He I absorption is fully captured by the SED continuum model, so no separate absorption parameters are needed.
    The continuum model includes stellar population synthesis and nebular continuum; if stellar absorption is misestimated, He I line fluxes could be biased. The authors note GOODSN-27876 has strong Balmer absorption and a high chi2. Entered in Sections 2.2 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption Neutral helium fraction is negligible for softness parameter eta<2; for eta>=2 the reported Y is a lower limit.
    Cloudy+BPASS models are used to define the threshold, but no ionization correction factor is applied to the sample. The four He-enhanced galaxies all have eta>2, so their Y values are lower limits. Entered in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption The local z~0 Y-O/H trend (Aver et al. 2022) can be extrapolated to the O/H and redshift range of AURORA.
    The outlier definition Delta Y is measured relative to this extrapolated trend. If the trend differs at high z or higher O/H, the subpopulation identification changes. Entered in Section 4.1 and used in Figure 6.
  • domain assumption Benjamin et al. (2002) radiative transfer corrections remain valid when extended to log ne up to 6, Te down to 5000 K, and tau up to 15.
    The paper recomputes f_tau grids with the original Fortran code over the expanded range; the validity of the parameterization at these extremes is assumed. Entered in Section 3.2.
  • standard math Case B recombination applies to the H I and He I lines used, with departures only through the f_tau correction.
    Standard nebular assumption, supported by the Porter et al. (2012, 2013) emissivity grids and the Benjamin et al. (2002) radiative transfer corrections. Entered in Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The AURORA Survey: Robust Helium Abundances at High Redshift Reveal A Subpopulation of Helium-Enhanced Galaxies in the Early Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHWISJFO

@misc{pith2026250717057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The AURORA Survey: Robust Helium Abundances at High Redshift Reveal A Subpopulation of Helium-Enhanced Galaxies in the Early Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHWISJFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17057}
}
abstract

We present the first robust helium (He) abundance measurements in star-forming galaxies at redshifts $1.6\lesssim z\lesssim 3.3$ using deep, moderate-resolution JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy from the AURORA survey. We establish a High$-z$ HeI Sample consisting of 20 galaxies with multiple high-S/N ($>5\sigma$) HeI emission-line detections, including the critical near-infrared $\lambda$10833 line. This is the first study at high redshift leveraging $\lambda$10833 to break degeneracies between temperature, electron density, optical depth, and He$^+$/H$^+$, enabling reliable He abundance determinations in the early universe. We use a custom MCMC framework incorporating direct-method electron temperature priors, extended optical depth ($\tau_{\lambda3890}$) model grids up to densities of $10^6$~cm$^{-3}$, and simultaneous fits of the physical conditions and HeI/HI line ratios to derive ionic He$^+$/H$^+$ abundances. Most of the AURORA galaxies follow the extrapolated $z\sim0$ He/H-O/H trend, indicating modest He enrichment by $z\sim2-3$. However, we identify a subpopulation of four galaxies that exhibit elevated He mass fractions ($\Delta Y>0.03$) without corresponding enhancements in N/O or $\alpha$-elements ($\sim20$% of the sample). This abundance pattern is inconsistent with enrichment from asymptotic giant branch stars, but favors early He enrichment from very massive stars (VMSs; $M\gtrsim100\ M_\odot$), which can eject He-rich, N-poor material via stellar winds and binary stripping in young stellar populations. We speculate that these elevated-He systems may represent an early phase of globular cluster (GC) formation where N enrichment is still lagging behind He production. This work demonstrates the power of JWST multi-line HeI spectroscopy for tracing early stellar feedback, enrichment pathways, and GC progenitor signatures in the high-z universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST/NIRSpec rest-frame optical and near-IR spectrum of GOODSN-22235, one of the 20 galaxies in the High−z He Sample used in this work, with at seven significant He I line detections. The stellar continuum derived from the SED fitting is plotted in blue. The orange vertical lines indicate the vacuum-wavelengths of He I emission lines. The top row of panels shows zoom-ins on the significant He I emission-line detecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample properties for the AURORA High−z He Sample. The left panel shows the mass-metallicity relationship (MZR) for the 20 galaxies used in this work, color-coded by redshift. For this trend, we use direct-method metallicities and stellar masses determined from the SED fits. To compare to a similar sample of direct metallicities at z ∼ 2−3, we plot the z ∼ 2.2 MZR from the MOSDEF Survey (SFR-corrected trend from San… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Partial energy diagram for He I. The eight main emission lines used in this work are indicated by colored, bold transitions and corresponding wavelengths. The metastable 2 3 S level (marked green) is an important reservoir of electrons for collisional-excitation at higher densities. Right: Relative emissivities of the eight He I lines versus electron density. Each trend is normalized to the value at ne = 101 c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Example of a corner plot for GOODSN-22235 generated by the MCMC analysis of the He+ /H+ abundance using six He I lines, including λ10833, and a Te([O III]) prior. The marginalized posterior distributions for the key parameters – He+ /H+ , electron temperature (Te…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the electron density (ne) determined from the He I fitting code versus the properties measured directly from the [S II] emission lines for the AURORA High−z He Sample. The [S II] and He I densities, which trace low- and high-ionization gas, respectively, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper left: Helium abundance (mass fraction) determined from the He I fitting code versus oxygen abundance, color-coded by optical depth at λ3890. The best fits for the AURORA High−z He Sample are plotted as circular points, color-coded by the best-fit optical depths. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the He mass fraction offsets from the z ∼ 0 Y−O/H trend of Aver et al. (2022) for single-line He abun￾dance analyses that are insensitive to Te, ne, and τλ3890. The ∆Yλ6680, inferred from the He I λ6680 line only, is plotted versus ∆Yλ5877, in￾ferred usin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the electron density (ne) (left) and temperature (Te) (right) determined from the He I fitting code versus the properties measured directly from the [S II] and [O III] emission lines, respectively. The best fits for the AURORA High−z He Sample are plotted…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Helium abundance (mass fraction) determined from the He I fitting code versus oxygen abundance. The best fits using a Te prior for the AURORA High−z He Sample are plotted as purple points. In comparison, we plot the He abundances determined using different priors for t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dependence of best-fit parameters on the inclusion of the He I λ10833 line. Results from the MCMC He+ abundance code with a Te-prior are shown for the High−z He Sample both with the density-sensitive He I λ10833 line (purple points) and without it (gold diamonds). Lef…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of helium abundance and physical parameters derived from the full multi-line MCMC analysis (x-axes) versus those derived using only a single He I line (y-axes). The left column shows results using the He I λ5877 line, while the right column shows results us…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Keenan, F

    Aggarwal, K. M., & Keenan, F. P. 1999, ApJS, 123, 311

    1999

  2. [2]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Robit...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Hirschauer, A

    Aver, E., Berg, D. A., Hirschauer, A. S., & others. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3226

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3226 2022

  4. [4]

    A., Olive, K

    Aver, E., Berg, D. A., Olive, K. A., & others. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/027

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/027 2021

  5. [5]

    A., Porter, R

    Aver, E., Olive, K. A., Porter, R. L., & Skillman, E. D. 2013, JCAP, 2013, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/017

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/017 2013

  6. [6]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Aver, E., Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. D. 2010, JCAP, 2010, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/05/003 —. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/043 —. 2012, JCAP, 2012, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/004 —. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/05/003 2010

  7. [7]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Skillman, E

    Benjamin, R. A., Skillman, E. D., & Smits, D. P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 288, doi: 10.1086/339242

    work page doi:10.1086/339242 2002

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Erb, D. K., Auger, M. W., Pettini, M., & Brammer, G. B. 2018, ApJ, 859, 164

    2018

  3. [11]

    McQuinn, K. B. W. 2019, ApJ, 874, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab020a

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Skillman, E

    Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98

    2012

  5. [13]

    A., James, B

    Berg, D. A., James, B. L., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1704

    Brinchmann, J. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1704

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  9. [17]

    1986, MNRAS, 223, 811

    Campbell, A., Terlevich, R., & Melnick, J. 1986, MNRAS, 223, 811

    1986

  10. [18]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  11. [19]

    C., Begley, R., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., Begley, R., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac136

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    G., & Meléndez, J

    Cohen, J. G., & Meléndez, J. 2005, AJ, 129, 303, doi: 10.1086/426369

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & White, M

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

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    J., & Fumagalli, M

    Cooke, R. J., & Fumagalli, M. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0584-z

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Caballero-Nieves, S

    Crowther, P. A., Caballero-Nieves, S. M., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw273

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al

    Crowther, P. A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 731, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17167.x

    2010

  19. [27]

    H., Fields, B

    Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., & Yeh, T.-H. 2016, Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, 015004, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Strader, J., & Smith, G

    Dupree, A. K., Strader, J., & Smith, G. H. 2011, ApJ, 728, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/155

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3007

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3007

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., McClelland, L. A. S., & others. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 Fernández, V ., Terlevich, E., Díaz, A. I., & Terlevich, R. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1433

    2017 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    D., Olive, K

    Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Yeh, T.-H., & Young, C. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 González Delgado, R. M., Cerviño, M., Martins, L. P., Leitherer, C., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08692.x

    2020

  25. [33]

    Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936669

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    M., van Hoof, P

    Gunasekera, C. M., van Hoof, P. A. M., Chatzikos, M., & Ferland, G. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Johnson, B

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

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Ellis, R., et al

    Harikane, Y ., Sanders, R. L., Ellis, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09186

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Brammer, G

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

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Prochaska, J

    Hsyu, T., Cooke, R. J., Prochaska, J. X., & Bolte, M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91af

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Ramsbottom, C

    Hudson, C. E., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Scott, M. P. 2012, ApJ, 750, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/65

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    I., & Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., & Thuan, T. X. 1998, ApJ, 500, 188, doi: 10.1086/305698 —. 2004, ApJ, 602, 200, doi: 10.1086/380830

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    I., & Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., & Thuan, T. X. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1115

    2007

  36. [44]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., Thuan, T. X., & Guseva, N. G. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 778, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1771

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., Thuan, T. X., & Lipovetsky, V . A. 1994, ApJ, 435, 647, doi: 10.1086/174843

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04148, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.04148 28 B ERG ET AL

    Ji, X., Übler, H., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04148, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.04148 28 B ERG ET AL

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    J., Ferland, G

    Kisielius, R., Storey, P. J., Ferland, G. J., & Keenan, F. P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14989.x

    2009

  40. [48]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 – 90

    2016

  41. [49]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Kraft, R. P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553, doi: 10.1086/133416

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Labbé, I., et al

    Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labbé, I., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 221, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Reina-Campos, M., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1609

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    R., & Ting, Y .-S

    Krumholz, M. R., & Ting, Y .-S. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3286

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

    1999

  47. [55]

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42

    2015

  48. [56]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., & others. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1415

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, A&A, 681, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347411

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Kuruvanthodi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347411

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, ApJ

    Martinez, Z., Berg, D., James, B., & others. 2025, ApJ

    2025

  54. [62]

    Mathis, J. S. 1982, ApJ, 261, 195, doi: 10.1086/160330

    1982 doi

  55. [63]

    1985, MNRAS, 217, 391 Méndez-Delgado, J

    Matteucci, F., & Tosi, M. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 391 Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Amayo, A., Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3782 Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Skillman, E. D., Aver, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17381, doi: 10.48550/...

    1985 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    1972, Non-LTE model atmospheres for B and O stars

    Mihalas, D. 1972, Non-LTE model atmospheres for B and O stars

    1972

  57. [65]

    Milone, A. P. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2198

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    P., & Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359, doi: 10.3390/universe8070359

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., & others. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2573

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Chisholm, J., et al

    Mingozzi, M., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ

    2022

  61. [69]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. D. 2004, ApJ, 617, 29, doi: 10.1086/425170

    2004 doi

  62. [70]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    2006

  63. [71]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Simonson, E. A., Terlevich, R. J., & Edmunds, M. G. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.2.325

    1992 doi

  64. [72]

    F., & Tsang, B

    Pascale, M., Dai, L., McKee, C. F., & Tsang, B. T. H. 2023, ApJ, 957, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf75c

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    U., & Cacciari, C

    Pasquini, L., Mauas, P., Käufl, H. U., & Cacciari, C. 2011, A&A, 531, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116592

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    2016, RMxAA, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Luridiana, V . 2016, RMxAA, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    2016 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 636, doi: 10.1086/520571

    Peimbert, M., Luridiana, V ., & Peimbert, A. 2007, ApJ, 666, 636, doi: 10.1086/520571

    2007 doi

  68. [76]

    1974, ApJ, 193, 327, doi: 10.1086/153166

    Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1974, ApJ, 193, 327, doi: 10.1086/153166

    1974 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, ApJL, 661, L53, doi: 10.1086/518503 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, do...

    2007 doi

  70. [78]

    L., Bauman, R

    Porter, R. L., Bauman, R. P., Ferland, G. J., & MacAdam, K. B. 2005, ApJL, 622, L73, doi: 10.1086/429370

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Ferland, G

    Porter, R. L., Ferland, G. J., MacAdam, K. B., & Storey, P. J. 2009, MNRAS, 393, L36, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00593.x

    2009

  72. [80]

    L., Ferland, G

    Porter, R. L., Ferland, G. J., Storey, P. J., & Detisch, M. J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, L28, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01300.x —. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L89, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt049

    2012

  73. [81]

    Rauscher, B. J. 2024, PASP, 136, 015001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc869

    Brammer, G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc869

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F

    Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F. 2010, A&A, 522, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014483

    2010 doi

  76. [84]

    L., Shapley, A

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

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., & others. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23

    2016

  78. [86]

    L., Shapley, A

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

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05273, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05273

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    2002, A&A, 381, 361, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011567

    Sauer, D., & Jedamzik, K. 2002, A&A, 381, 361, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011567

    2002 doi

  81. [89]

    2003, A&A, 397, 527

    Schaerer, D. 2003, A&A, 397, 527

    2003

  82. [90]

    2024, A&A, 687, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450721

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Xiao, M., & Korber, D. 2024, A&A, 687, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450721

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    P., & Rudie, G

    Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., & Rudie, G. C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.04179, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.04179

    2023 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    M., & Basu, S

    Serenelli, A. M., & Basu, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 865, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/865

    2010 doi

  85. [93]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 980, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adad68 AURORA H E 29 —. 2025b, ApJ, 981, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf98

    doi

  86. [94]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24

    2014 doi

  87. [95]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1576

    Spera, M., & Mapelli, M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1576

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437

    Steigman, G. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437

    2007

  89. [97]

    J., & Hummer, D

    Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41 Szécsi, D., Langer, N., Yoon, S.-C., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526617

    1995 doi

  90. [98]

    Tayal, S. S. 2011, ApJS, 195, 12

    2011

  91. [99]

    S., & Zatsarinny, O

    Tayal, S. S., & Zatsarinny, O. 2010, ApJS, 188, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32

    2010 doi

  92. [100]

    W., Sanders, R

    Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08712, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08712

    2025 doi arXiv

  93. [101]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Senchyna, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae682

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    Edmunds, M. G. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 633

    1988

  95. [103]

    1991, ApJ, 376, 51, doi: 10.1086/170255

    Kang, H.-S. 1991, ApJ, 376, 51, doi: 10.1086/170255

    1991 doi

  96. [104]

    K., Weinberg, D

    Weller, M. K., Weinberg, D. H., & Johnson, J. W. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf373

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., Norman, M. L., & Abel, T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/50

    2012 doi

  98. [106]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  99. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad72ec

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Watanabe, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad72ec

    2024 doi

  100. [108]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794

    Yusof, N., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.