pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01129 · v1 · pith:UW33EQXUnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Tilting at the Turnover: Modeling the Faint-End of the UV Luminosity Function Behind Abell s1063 with JWST

Caio Moreira Goolsby , Christopher J. Conselice , Duncan Austin , Tom Harvey , Jose Diego , Nathan Adams , Julien Marabotto , Jordan D'Silva
show 1 more author
Qiong Li
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 08:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords UV luminosity functionfaint-endstrong lensinghigh-redshift galaxiesreionizationJWSTionizing photonsAbell S1063
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galaxies fainter than M_UV=-17 supply more than half the UV luminosity density and at least 64% of ionizing photons at z=6.

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

This paper uses ultra-deep JWST and HST imaging behind the lensing cluster Abell S1063 to reach faint high-redshift galaxies and build the UV luminosity function at z approximately 6 to 11. The authors replace any sharp turnover cutoff with a gradual quadratic suppression that still permits some contribution from galaxies below the turnover magnitude. They detect no turnover signature down to M_UV=-13.5 at z=6 and report lower limits on the total UV output, star-formation rate density, and ionizing photon production. The results show that the faintest star-forming galaxies dominate the ultraviolet light budget and photon supply during the epoch of reionization.

Core claim

By constructing a photometric catalogue of lensed high-redshift candidates and modeling the UVLF turnover as a gradual quadratic suppression rather than a hard cutoff, the analysis shows that galaxies fainter than the conventional M_UV=-17 limit contribute more than half of the UV luminosity density and at least ∼64% of the ionizing photons produced by star-forming galaxies at z=6. Lower limits are derived as ρ_UV ≥22×10^25 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 Mpc^-3, SFRD ≥25×10^-3 M_⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3, and log10(n_ion/s^-1 Mpc^-3) ≥51.02. The model permits a suppressed but non-zero population beyond the turnover, so sources fainter than M_t still add to both ρ_UV and n_ion.

What carries the argument

The gradual quadratic suppression model for the UV luminosity function turnover, fitted to counts of strongly lensed high-redshift candidates, which allows a reduced but non-zero contribution from galaxies fainter than the turnover magnitude.

If this is right

  • Galaxies fainter than M_UV=-17 contribute more than half the UV luminosity density at z=6.
  • These faint galaxies produce at least 64% of the ionizing photons from star-forming galaxies at z=6.
  • The UV luminosity density at z=6 has a lower limit of 22×10^25 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 Mpc^-3.
  • The star formation rate density at z=6 has a lower limit of 25×10^-3 M_⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3.
  • Reionization models must account for the shape of any turnover to capture the contribution from sources fainter than M_t.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the lensing model holds, deeper imaging could directly detect the population below M_UV=-13.5 and test whether the quadratic suppression continues or flattens.
  • The large share of ionizing photons from faint galaxies implies that reionization calculations limited to brighter sources will under-predict the total photon budget.
  • Repeating the same lensing analysis on additional clusters would test whether the faint-end behavior is universal or varies with environment.
  • The absence of a detected turnover suggests the luminosity function may keep rising slowly at the faintest luminosities probed so far.

Load-bearing premise

The strong-lensing magnification model for Abell S1063 together with the photometric selection and completeness corrections accurately recover the intrinsic luminosities and redshifts of the high-z candidates down to M_UV≈-13.5 without large systematic biases.

What would settle it

A direct count of galaxies showing a sharp turnover at M_t brighter than -15 or a measured UV luminosity density below 22×10^25 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 Mpc^-3 at z=6 would falsify the shallow-turnover and no-turnover scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01129 by Caio Moreira Goolsby, Christopher J. Conselice, Duncan Austin, Jordan D'Silva, Jose Diego, Julien Marabotto, Nathan Adams, Qiong Li, Tom Harvey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RGB Composite of the processed, calibrated, and background subtracted F200W, F356W, and F444W cluster module GLIMPSE NIRCam observations of the Abell S1063 Cluster. The mosaic images are combined non-linearly using a hyperbolic stretch to highlight the details of the cluster galaxies, ICL and background lensed arcs. systems, suggest that faint galaxies may contribute a larger share of the ionizing photon b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: RGB Composite of the processed, calibrated, and background sub￾tracted F200W, F356W, and F444W non-cluster module GLIMPSE NIRCam data products. The mosaic images are combined non-linearly using a hyper￾bolic stretch. due to the extreme depth and sensitivity of the GLIMPSE survey, the background subtraction was done on a more aggressive 32x32 pixel grid rather than the more common 64x64 background calibrati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: RGB composite of processed, calibrated, and background￾subtracted Hubble Fronteir Fields F814W, F606W, and F435W imaging of AS1063. Yellow region represents the critical curve (magnification greater than 100) at redshift 8 in the image plane. wavelet decomposition of the science image to attempt to extract dif￾fuse, large-scale structure. However, due to the nature of Abell S1063, the vast majority of the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit SED for galaxy ID:8777, one of a multiply-imaged lensed galaxy in AS1063. The top panel shows the best high-redshift and low-redshift EAZY SED fit, along side the probability distribution for each solution on the top right. Below, the apertures for our photometery (green circle) are overlaid on the cutout for the galaxy in each filter. On the bottom is the BAGPIPES SED fit for galaxy 8777, alongsi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Redshift–𝑀UV distribution of the selected galaxy sample behind Abell S1063. For each galaxy, the observed UV absolute magnitude is shown together with the corresponding intrinsic, lensing-corrected value, with faint connecting lines linking the two measurements. Points are coloured by the gravitational magnification factor, 𝜇, shown on a logarithmic scale. The lens￾ing correction shifts galaxies to intrins… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photometric vs. spectroscopic redshifts for all grade = 3 objects in our matching of spectroscopic redshifts with our catalog. Sources which were not selected by our methods to be reliable galaxies are shown in gray; selected sources are highlighted. The solid line indicates 𝑧phot = 𝑧spec and the dashed lines show ±0.5 in |Δ𝑧 |. For the selected, grade = 3 subset with robust spectroscopic matches, we obtai… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ultraviolet luminosity function for galaxies at redshifts z = 6, where we probe the deepest into the faintest systems down to 𝑀𝑈𝑉 ∼ −13. Our data points are red triangles. The solid and dashed grey lines represent Schechter and Double Power Law (DPL) fits to the UVLF at redshift 𝑧 ∼ 6 respectively. The solid blue line and the dashed purple line represent the same Schechter and DPL, but with the faint end s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ultraviolet Luminosity function for various redshift bins (top left) Redshift z=7; (top right) Redshift z=8; (bottom left) Redshift z=9; (bottom right) Redshift z=11. Our data points are red triangles. The solid and dashed grey lines represent Schechter and Double Power Law (DPL) fits to the UVLF at redshift z=6 respectively. The solid blue line and the dashed purple line represent the same Schechter and D… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the faint end slope across the Epoch of Reionization. The best-fitted faint end slopes for each of our redshift bins are displayed in red for the Schechter fit and in blue for the DPL fit. Comparable literature faint-end slope values are also visibile, with the points being grey for non-lensing surveys and colour for surveys that leveraged gravitational lensing. Results from previous work usin… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This figure illustrates our attempt to constrain the turnover by directly comparing a turnover to a no-turnover model. In the top figure, you can see how by assuming a strong turnover, and by having the turnover strength (𝛿) and the turnover magnitude as free parameters, we observe the Δ BIC significantly favoring the no-turnover model, despite the very low Δ𝜒 2 . Applying this generally-used methodology … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A comparison of the best-fit Double Power Law (DPL) fit of the Redshift 6 UVLF with the UVLF DPL with various turnover models with 𝛿 = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 and 𝑀t = −14, −15, and -17. This illustrates how little variation there is in the faint end between the turnover and no turnover models, especially when you assume a weak suppression mechanism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A heat map of the Δ𝜒 2 , of how much better the no-turnover model fits the observed redshift 𝑧 = 6 UVLF when compared to a turnover model with a given 𝛿 and 𝑀t . Stronger (higher 𝛿) and higher mass/ lower magnitude (lower 𝑀t) turnovers are strongly excluded by the comparison, while it is difficult to robustly exclude shallow turnovers or turnovers at higher magnitudes as the faint end of the UVLF is not c… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Redshift evolution of the minimum allowed non-ionizing UV luminosity density, 𝜌UV, inferred from fixed-strength faint-end turnover models. Coloured diamond markers show the lower-limit values from this work, obtained by placing the turnover at the limiting magnitude still allowed by the data at the 90 per cent confidence level. The plotted values thus represent conservative minimum estimates of 𝜌UV. The t… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Constraints on the faint-end UV galaxy population from this work. Left: comparison of turnover magnitude constraints with previous studies, showing that, aside from Livermore et al. (2017), this work places among the tightest constraints on the UVLF turnover to date. Right: comparison of the inferred 𝜌UV lower limits from this work with literature values from Oesch et al. (2013); Bouwens et al. (2015); Fi… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Lower limits on the ionizing photon emissivity, 𝑛¤ion, inferred from the turnover-constrained UV luminosity densities using a luminosity-dependent Duncan-style 𝜉ion (𝑀UV ) relation and a Chisholm-style escape-fraction prescription, 𝑓esc (𝛽UV ). Literature measurements and model constraints are shown for comparison. These estimates should be interpreted cautiously, since the calculation extrapolates the 𝜉i… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Fraction of the ionizing photon emissivity, 𝑛¤ion, contributed by galaxies fainter than 𝑀UV = −17 at redshift 6 as a function of turnover magnitude and quadratic turnover strength. The calculation combines the DPL UVLF with the luminosity-dependent 𝜉ion and 𝛽UV relations from Austin et al. (2025), together with the 𝑓esc (𝛽UV ) prescription from Chisholm et al. (2022). Across the allowed parameter space, a… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Estimated f-ractional contribution to the total UV luminosity density, 𝜌UV, as a function of the adopted turnover strength, 𝛿, for the 𝑧 = 6 double power-law luminosity function. The calculation uses the DPL parameters 𝑀∗ UV = −21.20, log10 (𝜙 ∗ /Mpc−3 mag−1 ) = −3.72, faint-end slope 𝛼 = −2.071, and bright-end slope 𝛽 = −5.1. The two panels show different assumed turnover magnitudes, 𝑀turn = −17 and −15.… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We leverage the strong gravitational field of Abell S1063 to identify faint, highly magnified galaxies using ultra-deep James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)/NIRCam imaging from the GLIMPSE survey and ancillary Hubble Space Telescope (HST)/ACS imaging from the Hubble Frontier Fields program. We construct a photometric catalogue of lensed high-redshift candidates and use these sources to constrain the faint end of the rest-frame UV luminosity function (UVLF) over $z\simeq6$--11. Rather than treating the UVLF turnover ($M_{\rm t}$) as a hard cutoff, we model it as a gradual quadratic suppression and explicitly account for the potential continued contribution of galaxies beyond the turnover. In a shallow-turnover scenario, up to one-third of the UV luminosity density can arise from sources fainter than $M_{\rm t}$. While we find no direct evidence for a turnover down to $M_{\rm UV}=-13.5$ at $z=6$, our analysis can only confidently exclude weak, medium, and strong turnover models down to $M_{\rm t}=-15.9$, $-15.1$, and $-14.8$, respectively. Across these models, we infer lower limits of the UV luminosity, star formation density, and the ionization rate as: $\rho_{\rm UV}\geq22\times10^{25}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}$, ${\rm SFRD}\geq25\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}}$, and $\log_{10}(\dot{n}_{\rm ion}/{\rm s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}})\geq51.02$. We find that galaxies fainter than the conventional $M_{\rm UV}=-17$ limit contribute more than half of the UV luminosity density and at least $\sim64\%$ of the ionizing photons produced by star-forming galaxies at $z=6$. Because our turnover model permits a suppressed, but non-zero, galaxy population beyond $M_{\rm t}$, sources fainter than the turnover remain contributors to both $\rho_{\rm UV}$ and $\dot{n}_{\rm ion}$, emphasizing the need to consider the turnover and its shape during reionization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses ultra-deep JWST/NIRCam GLIMPSE imaging and HST/ACS Frontier Fields data behind the strong-lensing cluster Abell S1063 to build a photometric catalog of z≈6–11 lensed high-redshift candidates. It constrains the faint end of the rest-UV luminosity function by modeling the turnover as a gradual quadratic suppression (rather than a hard cutoff) that permits continued but suppressed contributions from galaxies fainter than M_t. No direct evidence for a turnover is found down to M_UV≈−13.5 at z=6; weak/medium/strong turnover models are excluded only down to M_t=−15.9/−15.1/−14.8. The analysis yields lower limits ρ_UV≥22×10^25 erg s^−1 Hz^−1 Mpc^−3, SFRD≥25×10^−3 M_⊙ yr^−1 Mpc^−3 and log10(n_ion)≥51.02 at z=6, together with the claim that sources fainter than the conventional M_UV=−17 limit supply >50 % of ρ_UV and ≥64 % of ionizing photons.

Significance. If the lensing magnifications, photometric redshifts and completeness corrections are accurate, the results tighten the observational lower bound on the contribution of sub-L* galaxies to the ionizing photon budget at z=6 and demonstrate that a gradual-turnover parametrization still allows substantial faint-end flux. This supplies a concrete target for reionization and galaxy-formation simulations and highlights the value of cluster-lensing fields for pushing UVLF constraints below the conventional M_UV=−17 limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Results (lensing and completeness sections)] The headline lower limits and the >50 % / ≥64 % contribution statements are obtained by integrating the binned UVLF whose faint-end points rest on de-lensed magnitudes and effective volumes derived from the Abell S1063 magnification map. The manuscript must therefore demonstrate that systematic uncertainties in the lens model (and in the magnification-dependent completeness) have been propagated through to the LF bins and the integrated quantities; without this propagation the quoted lower limits cannot be regarded as robust.
  2. [Results (turnover exclusion and integration)] The quadratic-turnover model is fitted to the observed LF points; the exclusion limits on M_t (−15.9/−15.1/−14.8) and the 50 % / 64 % fractions are therefore sensitive to any overall shift in the faintest bins. A quantitative test (e.g., Monte-Carlo realizations of the magnification map) showing how a 0.3–0.5 mag systematic in the M_UV≈−13.5 bin propagates into the integrated ρ_UV and n_ion is required before the central claims can be accepted.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the numerical lower limits but does not define the precise integration limits or the fiducial escape fraction and ξ_ion values used to convert ρ_UV to n_ion; these should be stated explicitly in the abstract or immediately following the quoted numbers.
  2. [Introduction / Methods] Notation for the quadratic suppression coefficients and the turnover magnitude M_t should be introduced once in the text and used consistently; the current description mixes “quadratic suppression” and “turnover magnitude” without a single equation reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of uncertainty propagation that strengthen the robustness of our conclusions. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Results (lensing and completeness sections)] The headline lower limits and the >50 % / ≥64 % contribution statements are obtained by integrating the binned UVLF whose faint-end points rest on de-lensed magnitudes and effective volumes derived from the Abell S1063 magnification map. The manuscript must therefore demonstrate that systematic uncertainties in the lens model (and in the magnification-dependent completeness) have been propagated through to the LF bins and the integrated quantities; without this propagation the quoted lower limits cannot be regarded as robust.

    Authors: We agree that systematic uncertainties in the lens model must be propagated to support the quoted lower limits. The current manuscript uses the fiducial magnification map from the literature without explicit Monte Carlo sampling of its uncertainties. In the revised version we will add Monte Carlo realizations of the Abell S1063 magnification map (incorporating both statistical and systematic errors) and propagate these through the de-lensed magnitudes, effective volumes, binned UVLF, quadratic-turnover fits, and the integrated quantities ρ_UV, SFRD and n_ion. Updated uncertainties will be reported on the lower limits and the >50 % / ≥64 % fractions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (turnover exclusion and integration)] The quadratic-turnover model is fitted to the observed LF points; the exclusion limits on M_t (−15.9/−15.1/−14.8) and the 50 % / 64 % fractions are therefore sensitive to any overall shift in the faintest bins. A quantitative test (e.g., Monte-Carlo realizations of the magnification map) showing how a 0.3–0.5 mag systematic in the M_UV≈−13.5 bin propagates into the integrated ρ_UV and n_ion is required before the central claims can be accepted.

    Authors: We concur that the M_t exclusion limits and the fractional contributions are sensitive to shifts in the faintest bins. The revised manuscript will include a dedicated quantitative sensitivity analysis. We will perform Monte Carlo tests that apply 0.3–0.5 mag systematic offsets to the M_UV ≈ −13.5 bin (consistent with plausible magnification uncertainties), re-fit the quadratic-turnover models, and report the resulting changes to the exclusion limits on M_t and to the integrated ρ_UV and n_ion values. This will directly quantify the robustness of the central claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: lower limits obtained by direct integration of data-constrained UVLF

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from photometric selection of lensed high-z candidates, construction of the observed LF, and integration of a quadratic-turnover parametrization fitted to those binned points. The reported ρ_UV, SFRD and n_ion lower limits are therefore statistical integrals over the observed sample plus the adopted functional form; they do not reduce by the paper's own equations to quantities defined solely by fitted parameters or by self-citation. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation steps are present in the supplied text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions in strong lensing and photometry plus the choice of a quadratic functional form for the turnover suppression. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the coefficients and location of the quadratic suppression.

free parameters (2)
  • quadratic suppression coefficients
    Parameters controlling the gradual drop in galaxy number density beyond the turnover magnitude M_t.
  • turnover magnitude M_t
    Location at which the quadratic suppression begins; different strengths are excluded at different values.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The strong-lensing magnification map for Abell S1063 correctly predicts the flux boost for background sources at z~6-11.
    Required to convert observed fluxes into intrinsic luminosities for the UVLF.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and color selections isolate a clean sample of z~6-11 galaxies with negligible low-redshift contamination.
    Necessary to construct the high-redshift candidate catalog used for the luminosity-function fit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6000 in / 1706 out tokens · 58271 ms · 2026-07-02T08:36:34.245706+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

178 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice C

    Adams N. J., Conselice C. J., Austin D., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b , 965, 169

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  2. [2]

    Asada Y., et al., 2026, GLIMPSE-DDT spectroscopic properties of faint-end galaxies at z 6 : Towards first metal enrichment, dust production, and ionizing photon production ( @eprint arXiv 2601.20045 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20045

    work page arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Asthana S., et al., 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 539, L18

    2025

  4. [4]

    Atek H., Richard J., Kneib J.-P., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1770 , 479, 5184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1770 2018

  5. [5]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 , 626, 975

    Atek H., Labb \'e I., Furtak L. J., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 , 626, 975

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 2024

  6. [6]

    Atek H., et al., 2025, JWST's GLIMPSE: an overview of the deepest probe of early galaxy formation and cosmic reionization ( @eprint arXiv 2511.07542 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07542

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Atek H., et al., 2026, A GLIMPSE of the 99

    2026

  8. [8]

    Austin D., et al., 2025, Resolving the ionizing photon budget crisis with JWST/NIRCam HII clumping constraints at z=6 ( @eprint arXiv 2512.10839 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10839

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Bera A., Hassan S., Smith A., Cen R., Garaldi E., Kannan R., Vogelsberger M., 2023, Bridging the Gap between Cosmic Dawn and Reionization favors Faint Galaxies-dominated Models ( @eprint arXiv 2209.14312 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14312

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , 117, 393

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  11. [12]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , 803, 34

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , 803, 34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  12. [13]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76e1 , 843, 129

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76e1 , 843, 129

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa76e1 2017

  13. [14]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0821 , 917, 3

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0821 , 917, 3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0821 2021

  14. [15]

    Bowler R. A. A., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1417 , 452, 1817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1417 2015

  15. [19]

    Calzetti D., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/308692 , 533, 682

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  16. [20]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2203 , 480, 4379

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2203 , 480, 4379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2203 2018

  17. [23]

    E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , 712, 833

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  18. [24]

    J., et al., 2024, EPOCHS I

    Conselice C. J., et al., 2024, EPOCHS I. The Discovery and Star Forming Properties of Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization at 6.5 < z < 18 with PEARLS and Public JWST data ( @eprint arXiv 2407.14973 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14973

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [31]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3343 , 518, 6011

    Donnan C. T., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3343 , 518, 6011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3343 2023

  20. [35]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2017, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , 34, e058

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  21. [37]

    , keywords =

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , 398, 1601

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  22. [38]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , 810, 71

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71 , 810, 71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/71 2015

  23. [40]

    D., Dav \'e R., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/169 , 743, 169

    Finlator K., Oppenheimer B. D., Dav \'e R., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/169 , 743, 169

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/169 2011

  24. [41]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2025, GLIMPSE-D: An Exotic Balmer-Jump Object at z=6.20? Revisiting Photometric Selection and the Cosmic Abundance of Pop III Galaxies ( @eprint arXiv 2512.11790 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11790

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [43]

    Y., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/317042 , 542, 535

    Gnedin N. Y., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/317042 , 542, 535

    work page doi:10.1086/317042 2000

  26. [46]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa7 , 265, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa7 2023

  27. [49]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2006, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 , 457, 841

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  28. [50]

    Illingworth G., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints

    2016

  29. [52]

    C., et al., 2026, A GLIMPSE into the UV Continuum Slopes of the Faintest Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization ( @eprint arXiv 2601.19995 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19995

    Jecmen M. C., et al., 2026, A GLIMPSE into the UV Continuum Slopes of the Faintest Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization ( @eprint arXiv 2601.19995 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19995

    work page arXiv 2026

  30. [55]

    E., Raftery A

    Kass R. E., Raftery A. E., 1995, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 , 90, 773

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995

  31. [58]

    Kroupa P., 2002, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1067524 , 295, 82

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  32. [60]

    Leja J., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1909 , 877, 140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1909 2019

  33. [61]

    C., Finkelstein S

    Livermore R. C., Finkelstein S. L., Lotz J. M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0155 , 1, 157

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0155 2017

  34. [71]

    P., Somerville R

    Moster B. P., Somerville R. S., Newman J. A., Rix H.-W., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/113 , 731, 113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/113 2011

  35. [72]

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

    Mu \ n oz J. B., Mirocha J., Chisholm J., Furlanetto S. R., Mason C., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086 , 535, L37

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae086 2024

  36. [74]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/75 , 773, 75

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/75 , 773, 75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/75 2013

  37. [75]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcd , 855, 105

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcd , 855, 105

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcd 2018

  38. [79]

    2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration Aghanim N., Akrami Y., et al. 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  39. [84]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100425 , 33, 100425

    Robitaille T. P., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100425 , 33, 100425

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100425 2020

  40. [85]

    Rowan-Robinson M., 1968, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/138.4.445 , 138, 445

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/138.4.445 1968

  41. [86]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/154079 , 203, 297

    work page doi:10.1086/154079 1976

  42. [87]

    Schmidt M., 1968, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/149446 , 151, 393

    work page doi:10.1086/149446 1968

  43. [88]

    Schwarz G., 1978, Annals of Statistics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AnSta...6..461S 6, 461

    1978

  44. [91]

    R., Eldridge J

    Stanway E. R., Eldridge J. J., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty079 , 479, 75

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty079 2018

  45. [93]

    Ulm K., 1990, @doi [American Journal of Epidemiology] 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115529 , 131, 373

    work page doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115529 1990

  46. [96]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3e4b , 244, 16

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3e4b , 244, 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3e4b 2019

  47. [97]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf , 236, 33

    Williams C. C., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf , 236, 33

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf 2018

  48. [102]

    and van Dokkum, Pieter G

    Brammer, Gabriel B. and van Dokkum, Pieter G. and Coppi, Paolo , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =. doi:10.1086/591786 , eprint =

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786

  49. [103]

    Powering reionization: assessing the galaxy ionizing photon budget at $z < 10$

    Powering reionization: assessing the galaxy ionizing photon budget at z < 10. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1049 , archivePrefix =. 1505.01846 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1049

  50. [104]

    The mass evolution of the first galaxies: stellar mass functions and star formation rates at $4 < z < 7$ in the CANDELS GOODS-South field

    The mass evolution of the first galaxies: stellar mass functions and star formation rates at 4 < z < 7 in the CANDELS GOODS-South field. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1622 , archivePrefix =. 1408.2527 , primaryClass =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1622

  51. [105]

    , title =

    Conroy, Charlie and Gunn, James E. , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  52. [106]

    2022 , version =

    Larry Bradley and others , title =. 2022 , version =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 2022

  53. [107]

    and others , title =

    Robitaille, Thomas P. and others , title =. Astronomy and Computing , year =

  54. [108]

    The Hubble Legacy Fields (HLF-GOODS-S) v1.5 Data Products: Combining 2442 Orbits of GOODS-S/CDF-S Region ACS and WFC3/IR Images

    Illingworth, G. and others , title =. arXiv e-prints , year =. 1606.00841 , archivePrefix =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [109]

    and others , title =

    Whitaker, Katherine E. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , year =

  56. [110]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series , year =

    Bertin, Emmanuel and Arnouts, Stéphane , title =. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series , year =

  57. [111]

    and others , title =

    Carnall, Adam C. and others , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

  58. [112]

    and Eldridge, J

    Stanway, Elizabeth R. and Eldridge, J. J. , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

  59. [113]

    Eldridge, J. J. and Stanway, Elizabeth R. , title =. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , year =

  60. [114]

    Science , year =

    Kroupa, Pavel , title =. Science , year =

  61. [115]

    The Astrophysical Journal , year =

    Leja, Joel and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  62. [116]

    The Astrophysical Journal , year =

    Calzetti, Daniela and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  63. [117]

    and Hobson, M

    Feroz, F. and Hobson, M. P. and Bridges, M. , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

  64. [118]

    and others , title =

    Ilbert, O. and others , title =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , year =

  65. [119]

    Caminha, G. B. and others , title =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , year =

  66. [120]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , year =

    Beauchesne, Benjamin and others , title =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , year =

  67. [121]

    and Steinhardt, Charles L

    Speagle, Joshua S. and Steinhardt, Charles L. and Capak, Peter L. and Silverman, John D. , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , year =

  68. [122]

    Bouwens, R. J. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  69. [123]

    The Astrophysical Journal , year =

    Schmidt, Maarten , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  70. [124]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

    Rowan-Robinson, Michael , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

  71. [125]

    and others , title =

    Williams, Christina C. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , year =

  72. [126]

    Modelling the spectral energy distributions of galaxies: a

    Chevallard, Jacopo and Charlot, St. Modelling the spectral energy distributions of galaxies: a. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

  73. [127]

    Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003 , journal =

    Bruzual, Gustavo and Charlot, St. Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003 , journal =. 2003 , volume =

    2003

  74. [128]

    Modelling the nebular emission from star-forming galaxies , journal =

    Gutkin, Julia and Charlot, St. Modelling the nebular emission from star-forming galaxies , journal =. 2016 , volume =

    2016

  75. [129]

    and others , title =

    Tomczak, Adam R. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  76. [130]

    The Astrophysical Journal , year =

    Stefanon, Mauro and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  77. [131]

    Oesch, P. A. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =

  78. [132]

    Skelton, R. E. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , year =

  79. [133]

    and others , title =

    Momcheva, Ivelina G. and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , year =

  80. [134]

    American Journal of Epidemiology , year =

    Ulm, Karl , title =. American Journal of Epidemiology , year =

Showing first 80 references.