Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A Galaxy with an Extremely Blue UV Slope $\beta=-3$ at $z=9.25$ Identified by JWST Spectroscopy: Evidence for a Weak Nebular Continuum and Efficient Ionizing Photon Escape?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies a galaxy at z=9.25, EBG-1, with a rest-frame UV slope of -2.99 ± 0.15, below the zero-escape model floor, and argues that reaching such a blue continuum requires an ionizing-photon escape fraction of at least about…

desk verdict A credible spectroscopic beta measurement for a z=9.25 galaxy, but the high escape-fraction conclusion rests on a model grid that excludes the galaxy's own best-fit metallicity. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19893 v3 pith:MA3RCOXU submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.GA

Hiroto Yanagisawa , Masami Ouchi , Kimihiko Nakajima , Yuichi Harikane , Seiji Fujimoto , Yoshiaki Ono , Hiroya Umeda , Minami Nakane
show 3 more authors
Hidenobu Yajima Hajime Fukushima Yi Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultravioletcolorreionizationgalaxyevolutionformationhigh-redshiftgalaxiesLymancontinuumescapenebularprismspectroscopy
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 searches 863 galaxies at redshifts 4 to 13 with near-infrared prism spectroscopy and identifies one galaxy, EBG-1 at z=9.25, whose ultraviolet continuum slope is β=-2.99±0.15. The authors argue this is too blue for a normal galaxy: their photoionization models, which include light from hot gas that re-emits absorbed ionizing photons, cannot reach β bluer than -2.6 unless a large fraction of ionizing photons escapes without ever ionizing the nebula. From the slope they infer an ionizing-photon escape fraction f_esc^ion ≳ 0.5, and from [O III] emission about three times weaker than average for its star-formation rate they infer f_esc^ion ∼ 0.7. If correct, EBG-1 is a direct, spectroscopically confirmed example of efficient ionizing-photon escape during cosmic reionization, showing how early galaxies could have ionized the intergalactic medium.

What carries the argument

The main diagnostic is the ultraviolet continuum slope β, defined by f(λ) ∝ λ^β, measured over rest-frame 1268–2580 Å windows from prism spectra and fit with a Markov-chain Monte Carlo method. The argument hinges on a photoionization-model grid that computes β for zero and nonzero ionizing-photon escape fractions across different incident stellar spectra, establishing β=-2.6 as the floor for f_esc=0; the observed β ≈ -3 then forces f_esc^ion ≳ 0.5. A second, independent probe is the ratio of [O III] λ5007 luminosity to star-formation rate, whose value about 0.5 dex below the average of a comparison sample implies f_esc^ion ∼ 0.7 if the comparison galaxies are not themselves leakers.

What would settle it

Deep spectroscopy that detects Hβ with rest-frame equivalent width above the range predicted for f_esc^ion ≳ 0.5 would contradict the weak-nebular picture, as would a direct Lyman-continuum escape-fraction measurement below roughly 0.3. Equivalently, a stellar-population synthesis model that reproduces both β ≈ -3 and the detected [O III] lines with f_esc=0 at the very low metallicity indicated by SED fitting would remove the need for photon escape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that EBG-1's rest-frame UV slope is genuinely β=-2.99±0.15, robust across five fitting schemes and two independent data reductions, and that such a blue slope requires the escape of ionizing photons rather than simply extreme stellar populations. In the paper's modeling, even very young, very metal-poor, or top-heavy stellar populations produce a nebular continuum from the gas they ionize, reddening the slope to β ≥ -2.6 when no photons escape; the only way to reach β ≈ -3 is to suppress that nebular continuum by letting more than half of the ionizing photons leave the galaxy. The galaxy also shows [O III] emission lines that are detected but about three times fainter than expected for a galaxy of its stellar mass and star-formation rate, which independently points to f_esc^ion ∼ 0.7, and it is compact with a high star-formation surface density, a property shared by low-redshift Lyman-continuum leakers. The authors stop short of a definitive measurement because Hβ is not detected and the spectrum is shallow, so they frame EBG-1 as evidence for, not proof of, efficient escape.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the model-grid floor: with no photon escape, no stellar population considered can make the UV slope as blue as -3 once the nebular continuum is added; if an extremely metal-poor stellar population can do that, the high escape fraction is not needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The blue slope of EBG-1 is not an artifact of reduction or fitting: five masking schemes and two independent reductions all give β below -2.6 at roughly the 2σ level or more.
  • If the escape-fraction interpretation holds, EBG-1 is among the most efficient ionizing-photon leakers known at z>8 and a concrete contributor to reionization.
  • The detected but weak [O III] lines independently favor a density-bounded nebula with holes over an extremely metal-poor stellar population, since line emission is still present.
  • Current data cannot break the degeneracy between escape fraction and ionizing-spectrum shape because Hβ is undetected; deeper spectroscopy is needed to confirm f_esc^ion ≥ 0.5.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same β<-2.6 screening could be pushed into the noisier part of the sample; several galaxies have best-fit slopes this blue but uncertainties above 0.5, so deeper spectra might turn EBG-1 into a population rather than an outlier.
  • Editorial inference: the slit may be sampling a gas-poor region near the galaxy's northwest tail, so the measured β could be bluer than the galaxy's integrated light; slit-position spectroscopy across the tail would test this.
  • Editorial inference: a testable prediction of the weak-nebular-continuum picture is a very small or absent Balmer jump; detecting a strong Balmer jump in deeper data would point to a metal-poor stellar origin instead of high escape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches 863 galaxies at z=4-14 from JWST/NIRSpec PRISM spectra in the DAWN JWST Archive, fits UV continuum slopes beta, and identifies EBG-1 at z=9.25 with beta = -2.99 +/- 0.15. This value is robust to fitting windows, masking, and an independent reduction, and is consistent with NIRCam photometry. The authors compare beta with Cloudy models and argue that beta < -2.6 cannot be achieved with f_esc = 0, concluding that a high ionizing photon escape fraction f_esc^ion >~ 0.5 is required. They also measure weak [O III] emission, inferring f_esc ~ 0.7 from the L[OIII]/SFR ratio relative to the Nakajima et al. (2023) sample.

Significance. If the escape-fraction interpretation holds, EBG-1 would be a direct spectroscopic example of efficient ionizing photon escape at z=9.25, with implications for reionization. The measurement itself is valuable: the authors demonstrate robustness of an extremely blue beta through multiple fitting methods, an independent reduction, and consistency with photometry. These checks are a strength. The theoretical inference, however, hinges on the coverage of the Cloudy grid, and the current grid does not sample the low stellar metallicities allowed by the SED fit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 / Figure 1] The f_esc = 0 lower limit beta = -2.6 is derived from Cloudy models with fixed stellar metallicity log Z_star/Zsun = -2 (Kroupa IMF) or Z_star = 0 (top-heavy) and nebular metallicity log Z_neb/Zsun = -2. The Prospector SED fit in Section 3.2 (Table 1) returns log Z/Zsun = -3.94, roughly two orders of magnitude lower than the grid's stellar metallicity. Because the grid does not cover the stellar metallicity range allowed by the data, the statement in the Abstract and Section 4 that the observed beta cannot be reproduced by stellar models with f_esc = 0 is not established over the full allowed parameter space; in fact, the paper itself cites Bouwens et al. (2010) models reaching beta ~ -3 with f_esc = 0 for extremely metal-poor populations.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 4] The only quantitative discriminator against the low-metallicity, f_esc = 0 scenario is the [O III] lambda5007 detection at 1.46 +/- 0.32 x 10^-18 erg s^-1 cm^-2. However, [O III] luminosity scales strongly with oxygen abundance, and the paper does not present the Cloudy-predicted [O III] strength for the low-metallicity f_esc = 0 case. A moderate-significance detection therefore does not rule out the degenerate solution. Similarly, the H beta upper limit (log EW(H beta) < 2.8, i.e., EW < 630 A) provides no leverage because the expected EW for a low-metallicity f_esc = 0 model is not computed. A self-consistent comparison of beta, EW(H beta), and L[OIII] over the Prospector posterior would be needed to break this degeneracy.
  3. [Section 3.3 / Figure 8] The f_esc ~ 0.7 estimate based on L[OIII]/SFR assumes the Nakajima et al. (2023) comparison sample has f_esc = 0; if those galaxies have nonzero escape fractions, the inferred f_esc for EBG-1 would be larger, and if EBG-1's metallicity is not on the assumed mass-metallicity relation, the estimate changes. The value should be presented as a model-dependent secondary constraint rather than as an independent measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (2)] The likelihood includes a log(sigma^2) term that is constant for fixed uncertainties; this is harmless but unusual, and the fitting description would be clearer if the authors noted that this term drops out of the parameter estimation.
  2. [Section 3.2, final paragraph] The sentence 'Because f_esc^ion = 0 is assumed in our SED fitting, the weak emission line feature of EBG-1 indicates a low metallicity, which compensates for the effect of nonzero f_esc^ion' is confusing; the SED fit does not use emission lines, and the weak lines are used later to infer f_esc. Please clarify the intended argument.
  3. [Figures 4 and 6] The two-dimensional spectra and extraction apertures are not labeled with the spatial and spectral directions; adding axis labels and marking the extraction window would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section 4, GALFIT analysis] Report the uncertainty on the effective radius (r_e = 0.04 kpc) and state whether the source is resolved; the extremely high Sigma_SFR depends sensitively on this value.
  5. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'we fit a spectra' should be 'we fit a spectrum' or 'we fit spectra'; a careful grammar pass throughout the manuscript would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beta measurement is an external observable and the f_esc inference is a forward Cloudy model comparison; the only overlapping-author baseline (Nakajima et al. 2023) is a secondary, conditional empirical comparison.

full rationale

The central derivation is a forward-model comparison, not a fit of the target quantity. The UV slope beta = -2.99 +/- 0.15 is measured directly from the DJA and independently re-reduced NIRSpec spectra (Sections 2.3 and 3.1) and cross-checked against photometry (Cullen et al. 2024). The f_esc >= 0.5 inference is obtained by comparing this observed beta with a Cloudy grid (Sections 2.1 and 3.3, Figure 9) computed for f_esc = 0 and f_esc = 1; no parameter of that grid is fitted to EBG-1, and the beta = -2.6 floor is a model output, not an input criterion defined by the target. The paper explicitly acknowledges the low-metallicity/f_esc = 0 degeneracy and cites an external model (Bouwens et al. 2010) that reaches beta ~ -3, arguing against it with the [O III] detection; that is a scientific argument, not a circular reduction. The secondary f_esc ~ 0.7 estimate compares L_[O III]/SFR with the Nakajima et al. (2023) sample; although several authors overlap with the present paper, that sample is an empirical compilation of 126 external galaxies and the comparison is explicitly conditional, supporting rather than defining the main claim. Remaining concerns, such as the Cloudy grid being fixed at log Z/Z_sun = -2 while the Prospector fit returns log Z/Z_sun = -3.94, are model-coverage and scientific-validity issues that should be evaluated as correctness risk, not as evidence that the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central beta measurement is model-free, but the interpretation uses several hand-chosen Cloudy parameters and a specific grid of IMFs. The SED fit adds fitted parameters, and the extremely low metallicity from that fit is the main alternative to high f_esc. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Nebular hydrogen density ne = 10^2 cm^-3
    Chosen by hand for the Cloudy models that set the beta=-2.6 f_esc=0 lower limit; not varied.
  • Nebular metallicity log Z_neb/Zsun = -2
    Chosen by hand for the Cloudy models; the SED fit later prefers a much lower stellar metallicity, so this choice may bias the f_esc inference.
  • Ionizing photon rate Q(H) = 10^50 s^-1
    Chosen by hand for the Cloudy models; affects the nebular continuum strength.
  • Cloudy inner radius = 10^14 cm
    Chosen by hand in the Cloudy setup.
  • Stellar mass M* = 10^7.98 Msun
    Fitted with Prospector and used for the [O III]/SFR comparison that supports f_esc~0.7.
  • Star formation rate SFR = 3.0 Msun/yr (UV), 5.5 Msun/yr (Prospector)
    Used to normalize [O III] luminosity; the adopted value affects the inferred f_esc.
  • Stellar metallicity Z = log Z/Zsun = -3.94
    SED fit output; the extremely low value is the main degenerate alternative to high f_esc.
  • Dust optical depth tau_dust(5500 A) = 0.01
    SED fit output; the dust-free solution supports the blue slope.
  • Ionization parameter log U = -3.25
    SED fit output; poorly constrained and affects the emission-line interpretation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The power-law form f(lambda)=A lambda^beta adequately represents the UV continuum over 1268-2580 Angstrom.
    Used in Equation 1; deviations from a power law, such as the Balmer break, are masked but not modeled.
  • domain assumption Cloudy models with BPASS Kroupa, top-heavy Yggdrasil, and blackbody incident spectra bracket the possible stellar populations.
    The beta=-2.6 lower limit for f_esc=0 is only as strong as this grid; the paper cites models that reach beta~-3 with f_esc=0 at very low metallicity.
  • domain assumption The f_esc parameter in Cloudy captures the relevant effect of ionizing photon escape on the nebular continuum.
    The model assumes leaking photons simply do not ionize the nebula; real escape geometry may differ.
  • ad hoc to paper SED fitting with f_esc=0 is valid for deriving stellar parameters.
    Section 3.2 states f_esc=0 is assumed, so the extremely low metallicity may be compensating for real photon escape.
  • domain assumption Lensing magnification mu=2.75 from McLeod et al. (2024) is correct.
    MUV and SFR depend on magnification; an incorrect lens model would shift the inferred physical properties.
  • domain assumption The comparison galaxy sample of Nakajima et al. (2023) has f_esc=0.
    If those galaxies also leak ionizing photons, the inferred f_esc~0.7 for EBG-1 changes; the paper acknowledges this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Galaxy with an Extremely Blue UV Slope $\beta=-3$ at $z=9.25$ Identified by JWST Spectroscopy: Evidence for a Weak Nebular Continuum and Efficient Ionizing Photon Escape?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MA3RCOXU

@misc{pith2026241119893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Galaxy with an Extremely Blue UV Slope $\beta=-3$ at $z=9.25$ Identified by JWST Spectroscopy: Evidence for a Weak Nebular Continuum and Efficient Ionizing Photon Escape?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MA3RCOXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19893}
}
abstract

We investigate UV continuum slopes $\beta$ of 863 galaxies at $z=4-14$ using archival JWST/NIRSpec PRISM spectra obtained from major JWST GTO, ERS, and GO programs, including JADES, CEERS, and UNCOVER. Among these galaxies, we identify a remarkable galaxy at $z=9.25$, dubbed EBG-1, with a significantly blue UV slope $\beta=-2.99\pm0.15$, unlike the rest of the galaxies that exhibit red continua or ambiguous blue continua hindered by large uncertainties. We confirm that the $\beta$ value negligibly changes by the data reduction and fitting wavelength ranges for UV emission/absorption line masking. The extreme blue slope, $\beta=-3.0$, rules out significant contributions from dust extinction or AGN activity. Comparing with stellar and nebular emission models, we find that such a blue UV slope cannot be reproduced solely by stellar models even with very young, metal-poor, or top-heavy contiguous star formation associated with strong nebular continua making the UV slopes red, but with a high ionizing photon escape fraction, $f_\mathrm{esc}^\mathrm{ion} \gtrsim 0.5$, for a weak nebular continuum. While the H$\beta$ emission line is not detected, likely due to the limited sensitivity of the spectrum, we find moderately weak [O III] $\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 emission lines for the given star-formation rate ($3\, \mathrm{M_\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) and stellar mass ($10^{8.0} \, \mathrm{M_\odot}$) that are about three times weaker than the average emission lines, again suggestive of the high ionizing photon escape fraction, $f_\mathrm{esc}^\mathrm{ion} \sim 0.7$ or more. EBG-1 would provide crucial insights into stellar and nebular continuum emission in high-redshift galaxies, serving as an example of the ionizing photon escaping site at the epoch of reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Top) Redshift distribution of our sample. (Bot￾tom) Fitted β value as a function of redshift. The blue points represent the galaxies in our sample. The β values with large error (> 0.5) are omitted in this figure. The red point indi￾cates EBG-1. The dotted line denote the lower limit of β for f ion esc = 0. Labbe), GO 2565 (PI: Glazebrook), DDT 2767 (PI: Kelly), ERO 2736 (PI: Pontoppidan), GO 3215 (PI: Eisenstein),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relation between β and MUV. From top-left to bottom-right, each panel shows galaxies at z = 4 − 14, 4 − 6, 6 − 8, and 8 − 14. The blue, green, and red points represent galaxies at 4 − 6, 6 − 8, and 8 − 14, respectively, while the large red points represent EBG-1. The stars and error bars denote the median and standard deviation in MUV bins. The black lines show the linear fit to the median points in each redshift bi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top and bottom panels show the 2D and 1D NIRSpec spectra of EBG-1 reduced by DJA, respectively. In the bottom panel, the black histogram and gray shaded regions represent the spectrum and its 1σ uncertainty, respectively. The red line presents the best-fit UV slope der…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of β measurements in this work and previous work. The red circle represents the values for EBG-1, whose β values in the previous works are taken from the photometric measurement of Cullen et al. (2024). The crosses denote the β values taken from the photomet…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of NIRSpec spectrum of EBG-1 reduced in this work and DJA. (Top) The yellow histogram and shaded region represent the spectrum reduced in this work and its 1σ error, respectively. The blue points denote the NIRCam photometry. The other symbols are the same a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: L[OIII]/SFR as a function of stellar mass. The red circle represents EBG-1. The blue squares denote the average values of galaxies at 4 < z < 9 taken from Naka￾jima et al. (2023). The ticks at the top of the figure denote metallicity, which is converted from stellar ma…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relation of β and EW(Hβ). The blue, green, and gray grids denote the same models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relation between f ion esc and ΣSFR. The red point shows EBG-1. The blue diamonds represent the galaxies obtained from the Low-z Lyman Continuum Survey (LzLCS; Flury et al. 2022), with the blue error bar shown at the bottom right corner representing the typical error.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Redshift evolution of Lyman continuum escape fraction after JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Average Lyman continuum escape fraction rises from 0.007 at z=0 to 0.6 at z=20, driven by radiation-powered outflows in high-sSFR galaxies.

  2. SAPPHIRES: Extremely Metal-Poor Galaxy Candidates with $12+{\rm log(O/H)}<7.0$ at $z\sim5-7$ from Deep JWST/NIRCam Grism Observations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seven candidate galaxies at z~5-7 show [OIII]/Hbeta ratios implying metallicities below 2% solar, with two below 1% solar, potentially breaking the high-redshift metallicity floor.

  3. Morphological Demographics of Galaxies at $z\sim 10-16$: Log-Normal Size Distribution and Exponential Profiles Consistent with the Disk Formation Scenario

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

    Galaxies at z=10-16 have a log-normal size distribution with sigma 0.52, nearly uniform axis ratios, and exponential profiles, consistent with early disk formation.

  4. Zapped then Napped? A rapidly quenched remnant leaker candidate with a steep spectroscopic $\beta_{UV}$ slope at z=8.5

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

    JADES-GS8-RL-1 is a z=8.5, low-mass galaxy that appears to have formed stars in a short burst and then rapidly quenched, with a steep blue UV slope and a tentative [OII] detection consistent with a high escape fraction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    B@ ! B@ !

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [7]

    J., Illingworth , G

    Bouwens , R. J., Illingworth , G. D., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2010, , 708, L69, 10.1088/2041-8205/708/2/L69

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/708/2/l69 2010

  8. [8]

    2012, , 754, 83, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83

    ---. 2012, , 754, 83, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/83

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/83 2012

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    Brammer, G. 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8319596

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.16.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14153298

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.16.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14153298

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, , 690, A290, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449768

    Calabr \`o , A., Pentericci , L., Santini , P., et al. 2024, , 690, A290, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449768

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al

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

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann , T

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

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Katz , H., Witten , C., et al

    Cameron , A. J., Katz , H., Witten , C., et al. 2024, , 534, 523, 10.1093/mnras/stae1547

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, , 517, 5104, 10.1093/mnras/stac2874

    Chisholm , J., Saldana-Lopez , A., Flury , S., et al. 2022, , 517, 5104, 10.1093/mnras/stac2874

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, , 762, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/32

    Coe , D., Zitrin , A., Carrasco , M., et al. 2013, , 762, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/32

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    J., McLeod , D

    Cullen , F., McLure , R. J., McLeod , D. J., et al. 2023, , 520, 14, 10.1093/mnras/stad073

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., McLure , R

    Cullen , F., McLeod , D. J., McLure , R. J., et al. 2024, , 531, 997, 10.1093/mnras/stae1211

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948

    de Graaff , A., Brammer , G., Weibel , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01623, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01623

    Dottorini , D., Calabr \`o , A., Pentericci , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01623, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01623

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137. 1302.4485

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L., Papovich , C., Salmon , B., et al

    Finkelstein , S. L., Papovich , C., Salmon , B., et al. 2012, , 756, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Jaskot , A

    Flury , S. R., Jaskot , A. E., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2022, , 930, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61e4

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Hewett , P

    Francis , P. J., Hewett , P. C., Foltz , C. B., et al. 1991, , 373, 465, 10.1086/170066

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    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, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Millman , K

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

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al

    Heintz , K. E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, 10.1126/science.adj0343

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Y.-Y., Coe , D., Abdurro'uf , et al

    Hsiao , T. Y.-Y., Coe , D., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2023, , 949, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc94b

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    2021 b , , 254, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    ---. 2021 b , , 254, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    2018, , 478, 4986, 10.1093/mnras/sty1225

    Katz , H., Kimm , T., Haehnelt , M., et al. 2018, , 478, 4986, 10.1093/mnras/sty1225

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Saxena , A., et al

    Katz , H., Cameron , A. J., Saxena , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03189, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03189

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    1998, , 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  29. [38]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  30. [39]

    2013, , 553, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118370

    Leitet , E., Bergvall , N., Hayes , M., Linn \'e , S., & Zackrisson , E. 2013, , 553, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118370

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    2022, , 517, 2972, 10.1093/mnras/stac2893

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., et al. 2022, , 517, 2972, 10.1093/mnras/stac2893

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    2024, , 691, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451667

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., Vanzella , E., et al. 2024, , 691, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451667

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    2017, , 465, 3637, 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    Matthee , J., Sobral , D., Best , P., et al. 2017, , 465, 3637, 10.1093/mnras/stw2973

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Donnan , C

    McLeod , D. J., Donnan , C. T., McLure , R. J., et al. 2024, , 527, 5004, 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Finkelstein , S

    Morales , A. M., Finkelstein , S. L., Leung , G. C. K., et al. 2024, , 964, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2de4

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    B., Mirocha , J., Chisholm , J., Furlanetto , S

    Mu \ n oz , J. B., Mirocha , J., Chisholm , J., Furlanetto , S. R., & Mason , C. 2024, , 535, L37, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    P., Tacchella , S., Mason , C

    Naidu , R. P., Tacchella , S., Mason , C. A., et al. 2020, , 892, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc9

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    2023, , 269, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., Isobe , Y., et al. 2023, , 269, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    P., Finkelstein , S

    Narayanan , D., Stark , D. P., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2025, , 982, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb41c

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    2024, , 76, 219, 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    Ono , Y., Harikane , Y., Ouchi , M., et al. 2024, , 76, 219, 10.1093/pasj/psae004

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  42. [51]

    2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    ---. 2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  43. [52]

    J., Katz , H., et al

    Saxena , A., Cameron , A. J., Katz , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14532, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14532

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    M., Wallin , J

    Schombert , J. M., Wallin , J. F., & Struck-Marcell , C. 1990, , 99, 497, 10.1086/115346

    1990 doi

  45. [54]

    R., & Eldridge , J

    Stanway , E. R., & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, , 479, 75, 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2022, , 941, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca522

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2024, , 529, 4087, 10.1093/mnras/stae800

    ---. 2024, , 529, 4087, 10.1093/mnras/stae800

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    2011, , 740, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13

    Zackrisson , E., Rydberg , C.-E., Schaerer , D., \"O stlin , G., & Tuli , M. 2011, , 740, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13

    2011 doi

  50. [59]

    2017, , 836, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/78

    Zackrisson , E., Binggeli , C., Finlator , K., et al. 2017, , 836, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/78

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    2015, , 801, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/44

    Zitrin , A., Fabris , A., Merten , J., et al. 2015, , 801, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/44

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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