Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Early Results from GLASS-JWST. XXV. Electron Density in the Interstellar Medium at $0.7\lesssim z\lesssim 9.3$ with NIRSpec High-resolution Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the electron density of the ionized interstellar medium in star-forming galaxies is roughly constant from z≈1 to z≈9, with best-fit power-law index k=0.48+0.44−0.42 for n_e∝(1+z)^k.

desk verdict A valuable new sample of resolved [OII] densities at high z, with a cautionary R~1000 test, but the flat ne-z claim is not yet robust to censoring and tracer mixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08382 v1 pith:HL6SMH7U submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.GA

Sijia Li , Xin Wang , Yuguang Chen , Tucker Jones , Tommaso Treu , Karl Glazebrook , Xianlong He , Alaina Henry
show 12 more authors
Xiao-Lei Meng Takahiro Morishita Guido Roberts-Borsani Lilan Yang Hao-Ran Yu Antonello Calabrò Marco Castellano Nicha Leethochawalit Benjamin Metha Themiya Nanayakkara Namrata Roy Benedetta Vulcani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords electrondensityinterstellarmediumhigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTNIRSpec[OII]doubletratio[SII]Abell2744star-forming
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 sets out to measure the electron density of the ionized interstellar medium in individual high-redshift star-forming galaxies using JWST NIRSpec high-resolution spectroscopy, and asks whether that density evolves with cosmic time. Assembling 34 galaxies at 0.7≲z≲9.3 magnified by the foreground Abell 2744 cluster, it finds no statistically significant redshift evolution: the best-fit power law n_e ∝ (1+z)^k has k=0.48+0.44−0.42, consistent with a flat trend from z≈1 to z≈9. This matters because earlier work had suggested a strong (1+z)^1–2 increase, which would imply that high-redshift galaxies have much denser gas; the new result, if correct, changes that picture. The paper also reports that in 13 galaxies where both [OII] and [SII] densities are measurable, the two tracers disagree far more than locally, indicating a complex gaseous environment.

What carries the argument

The analysis converts the [OII] λλ3726/3729 and [SII] λλ6718/6732 flux ratios into n_e using the nebular analysis code PyNeb, assuming a uniform electron temperature of 10,000 K; the ratio–density relation flattens far from the critical density, which is why the quoted uncertainties are often asymmetric and large. The doublets are resolved at R≈2700, and a synthetic R≈1000 test isolates the effect of spectral resolution on the derived densities.

What would settle it

If a sample of z≈6–9 galaxies with stellar masses and sSFR matched to the z≈2 galaxies shows n_e rising as (1+z)^1–2, the flat trend is refuted; alternatively, detecting a galaxy whose [OII] ratio exceeds 1.4 at SNR>5 and confirming its density with an independent tracer (e.g., [OIII] 52/88 µm) would demonstrate that the single-zone assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electron density of the ISM in star-forming galaxies does not show obvious redshift evolution at z≈1–9. Measured from the [OII] λλ3726,3729 and [SII] λλ6718,6732 doublet ratios assuming a uniform electron temperature of 10,000 K, the densities scatter around a roughly constant value, with a best-fit (1+z)^k index of k=0.48+0.44−0.42. When a local z≈0 anchor is added, the index rises to k=0.98+1.09−0.91, still consistent with a rise from z=0 to z≈2 followed by a plateau. In the 13-galaxy overlap sample, n_e from [OII] and [SII] show much larger scatter than local HII regions or previous z≈2 samples, and four galaxies have [OII] ratios above the theoretical upper limit; degrading the spectra to R≈1000 makes these ratios look physically plausible, showing that high spectral resolution is essential for this measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The entire density measurement rests on the assumption that the observed doublet ratio comes from a single uniform gas phase at 10,000 K; if the gas is clumpy or spans a range of temperatures, the quoted n_e is an average that may not correspond to any physical density.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the flat n_e(z) trend is correct, the previously claimed (1+z)^1–2 increase is not a universal property of high-redshift ISM, and density evolution must be separated from selection and resolution effects.
  • The large [OII]–[SII] scatter implies that a single-zone, uniform-density description is inadequate for many high-redshift galaxies; the two doublets probe different gas phases or spatial regions.
  • Surveys relying on R≈1000 spectra may systematically overestimate n_e and miss unphysical line ratios, so higher-resolution follow-up is needed for trustworthy densities.
  • The opposite trends of [OII] and [SII] ratios with sSFR suggest that star formation activity has tracer-dependent effects on the ionized gas, complicating simple star-formation–density relations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the authors leave implicit: if the no-evolution result holds in a larger sample, then the empirical relation between galaxy size and redshift (smaller galaxies at higher z) does not by itself force higher ISM densities, so the physical link between compactness and n_e must be weaker than assumed.
  • The five galaxies with [OII] ratios above the theoretical ceiling could be interpreted as evidence for density inhomogeneity or temperature variations within the [OII]-emitting gas, rather than measurement failures; this predicts that independent density tracers with different critical densities (e.g., [OIII] 52/88 µm) will disagree with the [OII]-derived densities for the same galaxies.
  • Combining the [OII] and [SII] densities with future spatially resolved IFU spectroscopy at z≈2–3 could map where each tracer's emission originates, testing whether the scatter is spatial stratification rather than time-variable clumping.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents electron density (n_e) measurements in the ISM of 34 star-forming galaxies at 0.7 < z < 9.3 from GLASS-JWST NIRSpec high-resolution (R ~ 2700) spectroscopy, using [O II] λλ3726,3729 and [S II] λλ6716,6731 doublet ratios and PyNeb under an assumed Te = 10,000 K. It reports a marginal anti-correlation between the [O II] flux ratio and sSFR, no significant correlation between the [S II] ratio and sSFR, no significant redshift evolution of n_e with best-fit k = 0.48(+0.44, -0.42) for n_e ∝ (1+z)^k, and a large scatter in the 13-galaxy overlap sample comparing n_e([O II]) and n_e([S II]). The paper also illustrates, using GLASS-20006, that medium-resolution spectroscopy can yield a biased n_e when the [O II] doublet is not fully resolved.

Significance. If the no-evolution result holds, it would challenge prior claims of strong (1+z)^1-2 density evolution (e.g., Isobe et al. 2023) and has implications for models of ISM properties in high-redshift galaxies, especially because the GLASS lensing field reaches stellar masses down to log(M*/M_sun) ≈ 7.5. The overlap sample of 13 galaxies with both [O II]- and [S II]-based n_e is the first at these redshifts and demonstrates tracer discrepancies not seen in local samples. The paper also makes a strong methodological point about the need for R ≳ 2700 to resolve [O II] doublets. However, the central claims currently rest on statistical analyses that do not transparently handle upper limits, unphysical ratios, and tracer-dependent sample coverage; these issues must be addressed before the conclusions can be fully trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 6, Table 2] The binned median fit that yields the no-evolution slope k = 0.48(+0.44, -0.42) does not state how upper limits (e.g., n_e < 52 for GLASS-320106, <148 for GLASS-80027, <164 for GLASS-341691, <489 for GLASS-160133, <2 for GLASS-50038, <10 for GLASS-410063, <144 for GLASS-410067, <12 for GLASS-410044) and the four n_e < 0 [O II] entries (GLASS-20006, 20025, 40094, 342321) are treated. If these censored points are either excluded or entered as detections, the per-bin medians, and hence the fitted k, are biased. Please specify the censoring scheme, report bin definitions and the number of detections, upper limits, and non-detections per bin, and ideally repeat the fit with a survival-analysis or limits-aware likelihood.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 4.3] The redshift-evolution fit combines n_e([O II]) and n_e([S II]) although the availability of the two tracers is strongly redshift-dependent: all z > 4 galaxies are [O II]-only, while most z < 1.5 and all z < 1 galaxies are [S II]-only. Section 4.3 itself shows that the two tracers disagree by factors of several to tens in the overlap sample (e.g., GLASS-340920: 280 vs 13 cm^-3; GLASS-340899: 135 vs 620 cm^-3; GLASS-80027: <148 vs 590 cm^-3). The binned medians therefore change with the tracer mix, and the fitted k can be biased even if each tracer shows no intrinsic redshift evolution. The authors should present separate fits for each tracer, or include a tracer-offset term, and show that the no-evolution conclusion is robust within each tracer.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Figure 5] The linear regression between the [O II] ratio and sSFR appears to include galaxies whose measured [O II] ratios exceed the theoretical upper limit described in Section 3.4 (e.g., GLASS-20006, with [O II] 3729/3726 = 1.9 ± 0.16 vs. the limit of 1.4; also the n_e < 0 entries in Table 2). The paper does not describe how these unphysical ratios are handled in the regression or in the reported slope -0.04 ± 0.02. Because these points lie at the low-density end of the ratio, their inclusion or removal can change the inferred marginal anti-correlation. Please provide a regression that treats these as censored or upper/lower bounds, or explicitly excludes them with justification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5, first bullet] The conclusion states 'There is positive correlation between the [O ii]λλ3726/3729 ratio and sSFR', which contradicts the abstract and Section 4.1, where a negative slope (-0.04 ± 0.02) is reported. Please correct this to 'negative correlation' (i.e., anti-correlation) or revise the phrasing to match the quantitative analysis.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 5] Section 3.4 states 'discovery of 5 galaxies in our sample, of which the [O ii] ratios are observed to be unphysical', while Section 5 says '4 galaxies with a [O ii] line ratio that exceeds the theoretical upper limit by > 3σ' and Table 2 lists four n_e < 0 [O II] entries. Please make the number consistent and specify the criterion (e.g., >1σ vs >3σ) used in each place.
  3. [Figure 5 and Section 3.4] The two places use reciprocal ratios: Section 3.4 quotes [O II] 3729/3726 above an upper limit of 1.4, whereas Figure 5 plots [O II] 3726/3729. To avoid confusion, define the ratio used in each figure and state the corresponding theoretical limits (e.g., the low-density limit of 3726/3729 is approximately 0.7).
  4. [Section 3.2] The text 'using the [S ii] λλ6718/6732 and/or [O ii] λλ3276/3729 ratios' contains a typo: '3276' should be '3726'. In addition, please specify the exact version of the PyNeb atomic data adopted as 'default', since collision strengths affect the n_e conversion.
  5. [Section 4.2] The description 'fit them to the n_e = (1 + z)^k function using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) through the MCMC method using emcee' is ambiguous: MLE and MCMC are distinct tools. Please specify the likelihood function (e.g., Gaussian in log n_e) and whether the fit is to the binned medians or to individual galaxies with their full uncertainties.
  6. [Section 4.1] Minor typos: 'the reversion correlation' should likely be 'the reverse correlation' and 'assocaited' should be 'associated'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the electron-density measurements are empirical and depend on external atomic-data calibrations, not on the paper's own fitted outputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed result is equivalent to its input by construction. The electron densities are derived from [O II] and [S II] doublet ratios using PyNeb with default atomic data (Section 3.2), an external calibration, and the Sanders et al. (2016) relations are used only as a sanity check, not as a fitted curve. The redshift-evolution fit in Section 4.2 is a descriptive regression of the measured n_e values to n_e ∝ (1+z)^k; the fitted index k = 0.48^{+0.44}_{-0.42} is an output of the data, not an input forced by a self-referential construction. The paper does not rename a known result as a new one, and it does not import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz from prior work by the same authors; the GLASS-JWST and Jones et al. (2023) references are procedural data-reduction citations that do not carry the physics. The possible concerns about tracer-dependent sample coverage (high-z points being [O II]-only and low-z points mostly [S II]-only), the handling of upper limits, and the single-zone T_e = 10,000 K assumption are legitimate statistical and systematic validity issues, but they are not circularity: even if those choices bias the slope, the bias would come from selection or modeling assumptions, not from the conclusion being defined into the inputs. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no prediction reduces to a fitted parameter by construction. I therefore assign a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central measurements depend on standard atomic data plus a fixed electron temperature, a single-zone gas model, standard SFR calibrations, and a lens model.

free parameters (1)
  • Assumed electron temperature T_e = 10,000 K
    Used for all n_e conversions in Section 3.2; only one galaxy has a measured T_e, so the assumed value is a free input that can shift inferred densities if the real T_e differs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single uniform-density, uniform-temperature zone at T_e=10,000 K produces each doublet ratio
    Section 3.2 converts ratios to n_e with PyNeb under this assumption; Section 3.4 shows five galaxies with ratios above the theoretical maximum, which the model cannot explain.
  • domain assumption Default PyNeb atomic data are accurate for high-redshift gas
    No high-redshift-specific test is given; Sanders et al. (2016) relations are used only as a consistency check.
  • domain assumption Balmer line conversion, dust correction, and Kennicutt SFR calibration apply
    SFRs rely on L(Hβ) with the case B ratio and SED-based A_V; these standard assumptions propagate into the sSFR values used in the correlations.
  • domain assumption CATSV4.1 lensing magnification is accurate
    Stellar masses and SFRs are magnification-corrected using a cluster model; systematic errors in magnification can bias the mass and sSFR correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Results from GLASS-JWST. XXV. Electron Density in the Interstellar Medium at $0.7\lesssim z\lesssim 9.3$ with NIRSpec High-resolution Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HL6SMH7U

@misc{pith2026241208382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Results from GLASS-JWST. XXV. Electron Density in the Interstellar Medium at $0.7\lesssim z\lesssim 9.3$ with NIRSpec High-resolution Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HL6SMH7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08382}
}
abstract

The electron density (${n_{\rm e}}$) of the interstellar medium (ISM) in star-forming galaxies is intimately linked to star formation and ionization condition. Using the high-resolution spectra obtained from the JWST NIRSpec micro shutter assembly (MSA) as part of the GLASS-JWST program, we have assembled the largest sample to date (34 galaxies) with individual ${n_{\rm e}}$ measurements derived from the [OII] $\lambda\lambda$3726,29 and/or [SII] $\lambda\lambda$6718,32 doublets at $0.7\lesssim z\lesssim 9.3$. The gravitational lensing magnification by the foreground Abell~2744 cluster allows us to probe ${n_{\rm e}}$ in galaxies with stellar masses ($M_{*}$) down to $\simeq 10^{7.5} M_\odot$ across the entire redshift range. Our analysis reveals that the [OII] flux ratios are marginally anti-correlated with specific star formation rate (sSFR) within a 1-$\sigma$ confidence interval, whereas the [SII] flux ratios show no significant correlation with sSFR. Despite clear correlation between sSFR and redshift within our sample, we find no apparent redshift evolution of ${n_{\rm e}}$ at $z \simeq 1-9$. Our dataset also includes 13 galaxies where ${n_{\rm e}}$ can be measured from both [OII] and [SII]. Contrary to findings at lower redshifts, we observe considerable scatter in ${n_{\rm e}}$ measurements from [OII] and [SII], indicating a complex gaseous environment with significant variations in ${n_{\rm e}}$ in high-redshift galaxies. This work highlights the unique capability of JWST NIRSpec/MSA high-resolution spectroscopy to characterize the detailed physical properties of the ISM in individual high-redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observed spectra and emission line fitting for GLASS-40202 at z = 3.7317 (top) and GLASS-20006 at z = 1.6751 (bottom). In both cases, the top two panels illustrate the emission line fits for the [O ii] and [S ii] doublets. The blue stepped lines represent the observed spectra, with the blue boxes indicating 1-σ uncertainties. The best-fit single Gaussian for each line is shown in red, while the green curves represen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observed high-resolution (R ∼ 2700) and synthetic medium-resolution (R ∼ 1000) spectroscopy of the [O ii] doublets of GLASS-20006. The top panel shows the original spectrum of the [O ii] doublets secured with the high-resolution G140H grating. In the bottom panel, we show smoothed spectrum with effective reso￾lution downgraded to that similar to the medium-resolution G140M grating, to which we also perform emission … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of M∗ and SFR for the galaxies in our sample. The data points are color-coded by their redshifts. The solid thick lines indicate the star-forming main sequence at the cor￾responding redshifts adopted from Speagle et al. (2014). Our galaxy samples are represented by large squares, and are roughly represen￾tative of the star-forming main sequence at the corresponding red￾shifts. 3.6. Balmer-line Based… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationships between line flux ratios and specific star formation rate (sSFR) of our sample galaxies. The left panel shows the [O ii] λ3726/[O ii]λ3729 flux ratio, and the right panel shows the [S ii]λ6718/[S ii]λ6732. Note that the [O ii] λλ3726, 3729 doublets ar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift evolution of the ISM electron density (ne) of the high-redshift galaxies analyzed in this work. The ne measurements based on the low-ionization emission line flux ratios of the [O ii] and [S ii] doublets are represented by the green and orange circles, respect…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the ISM electron density derived from the [O ii] λλ3726,3729 and [S ii] λλ6718,6732 doublet flux ratios. In the left panel, the orange circles denote ne measured using both tracers, assuming a fiducial electron temperature of Te ([O ii])=Te ([S ii])=10,00…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The AURORA Survey: The Evolution of Multi-phase Electron Densities at High Redshift

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A homogeneous JWST/NIRSpec sample of galaxies at z=1.4-10 shows low-ionization gas density rising with redshift, with high-ionization gas roughly 30 times denser.

  2. Metallicity Scatter Originating from Sub-kiloparsec Starbursting Clumps in the Core of a Protocluster at z=7.88

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spatially resolved JWST spectroscopy of a z=7.88 merging system reveals up to about 1 dex internal scatter in oxygen abundance, anchored by a direct electron-temperature measurement of 7.4 in one starbursting clump.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., Coe, D., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Larson, R. L., Coe, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16201

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16201 2024

  2. [2]

    E., Trump, J

    Backhaus, B. E., Trump, J. R., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1520

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1520 2024

  3. [3]

    B., Rigby, J

    Bayliss, M. B., Rigby, J. R., Sharon, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/144 2014

  4. [4]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b 2021

  5. [5]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1877

    Bian, F., Fan, X., Bechtold, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1877

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1877 2010

  6. [6]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12914.x

    Brinchmann, J., Pettini, M., & Charlot, S. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12914.x

    arXiv 2008

  7. [8]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  8. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346

    1994 doi

  2. [11]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

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

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

    2003 doi

  4. [13]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 771, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01953-7

    Chen, Y ., Jones, T., Sanders, R., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 771, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01953-7

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    L., F¨orster Schreiber, N

    Davies, R. L., F¨orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd551

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Groves, B. A. 2016, ApJL, 824, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L13

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium 14 L i et al

    2011

  8. [17]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023, The JADES Origins Field: A New JWST Deep Field in the JADES Second NIRCam Data Release, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2595

    Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2595

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2794

    Feltre, A., Charlot, S., & Gutkin, J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2794

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 Fern´andez, V ., Amor´ın, R., Firpo, V ., & Morisset, C. 2024, A&A, 688, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449224 Fern´andez-Arenas, D., Carrasco, E., Terlevich, R., et al. 202...

    2017 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235c

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235c

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    N., Shapley, A

    Hainline, K. N., Shapley, A. E., Kornei, K. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/52

    2009 doi

  15. [24]

    K., et al

    Harikane, Y ., Ouchi, M., Inoue, A. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bd

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cf

    Harshan, A., Gupta, A., Tran, K.-V ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cf

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    F., Kereˇs, D., O˜norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇs, D., O˜norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  18. [27]

    1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    Isobe, Y ., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3509

    Isobe, Y ., Ouchi, M., Suzuki, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3509

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1402

    Jauzac, M., Richard, J., Jullo, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1402

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd938

    Jones, T., Sanders, R., Chen, Y ., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd938

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    J., & Gupta, A

    Kaasinen, M., Bian, F., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., & Gupta, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2827

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x

    2003

  25. [34]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad687

    Killi, M., Watson, D., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad687

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    L., & English, J

    Kingsburgh, R. L., & English, J. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.4.635

    1992 doi

  29. [38]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, in Saas-Fee Advanced

    2016

  30. [39]

    43, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, ed

    Course, V ol. 43, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, ed. Y . Revaz, P. Jablonka, R. Teyssier, & L. Mayer, 85, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5 2

    doi

  31. [40]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y . 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    E., Coil, A

    Liu, X., Shapley, A. E., Coil, A. L., Brinchmann, J., & Ma, C.-P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 758, doi: 10.1086/529030

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 M´endez-Delgado, J

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 M´endez-Delgado, J. E., Esteban, C., Garc´ıa-Rojas, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1569

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00169

    Merlin, E., Santini, P., Paris, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00169

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    L., Arellano-C´ordova, K

    Mingozzi, M., James, B. L., Arellano-C´ordova, K. Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac952c Miranda-P´erez, B. E., & Hidalgo-G´amez, A. M. 2023, ApJ, 952, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4b

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    2012, A&A, 542, L34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219518

    Nagao, T., Maiolino, R., De Breuck, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, L34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219518

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu902

    Nakajima, K., & Ouchi, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu902

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  40. [49]

    1993, RMxAA, 27, 9

    Peimbert, M. 1993, RMxAA, 27, 9

    1993

  41. [50]

    2002, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol

    Peimbert, M. 2002, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 12, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. W. J. Henney, J. Franco, & M. Martos, 275–279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0106063 —. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXi...

    2002 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    M., Pettini, M., Shapley, A

    Quider, A. M., Pettini, M., Shapley, A. E., & Steidel, C. C. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1263, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15234.x

    2009

  43. [52]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd754

    Brammer, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd754

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Sanders, R

    Reddy, N. A., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd0b1

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    R., Wuyts, E., Gladders, M

    Rigby, J. R., Wuyts, E., Gladders, M. D., Sharon, K., & Becker, G. D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/59

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    H., Ferland, G

    Rubin, R. H., Ferland, G. J., Chollet, E. E., & Horstmeyer, R. 2004, ApJ, 605, 784, doi: 10.1086/382528 NIRSpec glass - electron density 15

    2004 doi

  47. [56]

    Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acedad —. 2024, ApJ, 962, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15fc

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/23

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9586

    Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9586

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    I., Nakajima, K., et al

    Schaerer, D., Izotov, Y . I., Nakajima, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833823

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Ormerod, K., et al

    Schouws, S., Bouwens, R. J., Ormerod, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20549, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20549

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., et al. 2024, The AURORA Survey: A New Era of Emission-line Diagrams with JWST/NIRSpec. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.00157

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    2014a, ApJ, 787, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/120

    Shirazi, M., Brinchmann, J., & Rahmati, A. 2014a, ApJ, 787, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/120

    doi

  54. [63]

    2014b, MNRAS, 440, 2201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu316

    Shirazi, M., Vegetti, S., Nesvadba, N., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 440, 2201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu316

    doi

  55. [64]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Strom, A

    Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., Pettini, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 159, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/159

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    C., Rudie, G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165

    2014 doi

  58. [67]

    L., Rudie, G

    Strom, A. L., Rudie, G. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 958, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad07dc

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    C., & Shen, X

    Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., Hayward, C. C., & Shen, X. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2902

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    L., Steidel, C

    Theios, R. L., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf386

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/28

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.