Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Redshift evolution of Lyman continuum escape fraction after JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The fraction of ionizing photons escaping galaxies rises from 0.007 at z=0 to about 0.6 at z=20, driven by radiation-driven outflows in super-Eddington galaxies.

desk verdict A useful, honest extension of AFM to fesc(z), but the headline high-z amplitude rests on an extrapolated empirical relation; the trend is solid, the numbers at z>10 are not. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10619 v2 pith:WKQ7MCED submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

A. Ferrara , M. Giavalisco , L. Pentericci , E. Vanzella , A. Calabrò , M. Llerena This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords escapefractionLymancontinuumreionizationradiation-drivenoutflowsspecificstarformationrateUVspectralslopesuper-EddingtongalaxiesJWST
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

The paper argues that the fraction of Lyman continuum photons that escape from galaxies, $f_{\rm esc}$, is not constant but grows with cosmic time, from about 0.007 at $z=0$ to roughly 0.6 at $z=20$. The driver is the redshift-increasing specific star formation rate: once a galaxy's sSFR exceeds a threshold near 25 Gyr$^{-1}$, radiation pressure from young stars drives outflows that clear dust-transparent channels, letting ionizing photons leak. The model splits galaxies into strong leakers and LyC-dark systems, and predicts that the cosmic mix of the two populations shifts with redshift. The authors show the predicted $f_{\rm esc}(z)$ matches direct, indirect, and SED-fitting measurements through $z\approx9.5$, and that the same mechanism explains the steady blueward drift of the mean UV slope $\beta$ with redshift.

What carries the argument

The Attenuation-Free Model: a galaxy becomes super-Eddington when its bolometric luminosity exceeds $A^{-1} L_{\rm Edd}$, a condition equivalent to sSFR $> {\rm sSFR}^* \approx 25$ Gyr$^{-1}$, at which point radiation pressure from young stars drives an outflow that removes dust and gas. The model uses sSFR $= 0.64 (1+z)^{3/2}$ Gyr$^{-1}$ and a normal distribution of sSFR scatter to compute $f_E(z)$ via a complementary error function; Eq. (5) then forms the weighted mean of the two escape fractions. The Chisholm et al. (2022) empirical relation $f_{\rm esc} = (1.3\pm0.6)\times10^{-4}\times10^{-(1.22\pm0.1)\beta}$ connects predicted $f_{\rm esc}$ to the UV slope $\beta$, allowing a simultaneous MCMC fit of $f_0$, $f_1$, and sSFR$^*$ to observed $\beta$ data.

What would settle it

Stack JWST/NIRSpec spectra of about 10-20 compact galaxies at $z\approx10$--$13$ with sSFR $>25$ Gyr$^{-1}$ and estimate their Lyman continuum escape: if most show $f_{\rm esc}<0.2$, the bimodal super-Eddington picture fails. A second decisive check is whether the Chisholm et al. (2022) $f_{\rm esc}$-$\beta$ relation actually holds at $\beta<-2.6$; if it flattens there, the fitted $f_1$ and the high-$z$ $f_{\rm esc}$ curve are systematically biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the redshift evolution of the Lyman continuum escape fraction is set by the fraction $f_E(z)$ of galaxies undergoing super-Eddington radiation-driven outflows. Globally averaged, $f_{\rm esc}(z) = [1-f_E] f_0 + f_E f_1$ with best-fit $f_0=0.007$ and $f_1=0.64$, rising from 0.007 at $z=0$ to 0.6 at $z=20$. The threshold sSFR$^*$ recovered from fitting the UV slope data is about 35 Gyr$^{-1}$, close to the theoretically expected 25 Gyr$^{-1}$, and $f_E$ rises from 0.22 at $z=6$ to 0.76 at $z=14$. The same curve, converted to UV slope through the Chisholm et al. (2022) $f_{\rm esc}$--$\beta$ relation, reproduces the observed $\beta(z)$ from $z=0$ to $z=12$, and a sample with redder-than-average slopes (Dottorini et al. 2024) is matched by inserting its measured low super-Eddington fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-redshift empirical relation between $f_{\rm esc}$ and UV slope $\beta$ (Chisholm et al. 2022), calibrated only for $\beta\gtrsim-2.6$, continues to hold when extrapolated to the bluer slopes found at high redshift; if it does not, the fitted $f_0$, $f_1$, and sSFR$^*$ and the predicted $f_{\rm esc}(z)$ are systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $f_{\rm esc}$ reaches about 0.6 by $z=20$, the ionizing photon budget available for reionization at early epochs is much larger than constant-$f_{\rm esc}$ models assume, favoring an early start to reionization.
  • The bimodal picture implies that most high-redshift galaxies are either strong leakers ($f_{\rm esc}\gtrsim40\%$) or nearly LyC-dark ($f_{\rm esc}\lesssim1\%$), so surveys should see two distinct populations in LyC-related indicators.
  • Because the same outflows make galaxies bluer, the observed trend of the mean UV slope $\beta$ with redshift follows from the rising super-Eddington fraction rather than from a change in dust content alone.
  • Reionization calculations that treat $f_{\rm esc}$ as a constant will misestimate the ionizing photon budget by a large factor, since the globally averaged value rises by roughly two orders of magnitude across $0<z<20$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Chisholm relation flattens at $\beta<-2.6$ as the Jaskot et al. (2024) relation suggests, the super-Eddington escape fraction could be roughly half ($f_1\approx0.33$) and the $z=20$ value closer to 0.3 than 0.6; the paper's own fit cannot fully discriminate between the two relations with current data.
  • The model predicts a measurable population of super-Eddington galaxies at $z>10$; JWST/NIRSpec observations of compact, blue galaxies with sSFR $>25$ Gyr$^{-1}$ should reveal large LyC escape through strong ionizing continua or large ionized bubbles.
  • If outflow geometry is anisotropic rather than spherical, the same super-Eddington fraction would produce lower average $f_{\rm esc}$ values, so geometric coverage is a natural systematic correction to the $z=20$ prediction.
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 manuscript extends the Attenuation-Free Model (AFM) to predict the redshift evolution of the Lyman continuum escape fraction, f_esc(z). The model assumes that galaxies with sSFR above a threshold sSFR* are super-Eddington and develop radiation-driven outflows, and that f_esc is a weighted mean of a low value f0 for sub-Eddington and a high value f1 for super-Eddington galaxies. The parameters f0, f1, and sSFR* are fitted by MCMC to observed UV slope beta data in 0<z<12, after converting predicted f_esc into beta via the Chisholm et al. (2022) relation (Eq. 6). The best fit yields f0 = 0.007, f1 = 0.64, sSFR* = 35.4 Gyr^-1, predicting global f_esc rising from 0.007 at z=0 to about 0.6 at z=20. The predictions are compared with direct, indirect, and SED-based f_esc measurements in 2<z<9, and the D24 sample is used as a test in Sec. 3.1. The paper concludes that f_esc evolves significantly and cannot be treated as constant, with implications for reionization.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a physically motivated explanation for the observed f_esc and beta trends and supports an early, outflow-driven reionization scenario. The AFM framework is simple and testable, and the paper makes transparent comparisons with multiple independent datasets. The MCMC procedure and the explicit caveats about the Chisholm relation are strengths. However, the headline high-redshift amplitude, f_esc(20) ~ 0.6, is set by an extrapolation of an empirical relation beyond its calibration range, and the paper itself shows that an alternative relation reduces f1 by a factor of two. The direction of the trend is well supported, but the quantitative high-z prediction is currently not pinned down. The D24 test is presented as a demonstration of predictive power, but it is actually a consistency check using the same sample's sSFR distribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6)] The central quantitative claim—f_esc reaching about 60% at z=20—depends on the fitted value f1 = 0.64, which in turn is anchored by inverting the Chisholm et al. (2022) f_esc–beta relation and applying it to beta data that lie mostly blueward of the relation's stated validity limit beta >~ -2.6. The paper acknowledges this extrapolation, and the alternative Jaskot et al. (2024) relation gives f1 = 0.33, lowering f_esc(20) by about a factor of two. The authors state that current data cannot discriminate between the two relations, yet the Chisholm relation is adopted as fiducial and the ~60% value is presented as a prediction. This is a load-bearing issue: the high-z amplitude is set by an unvalidated empirical extrapolation rather than by AFM physics. I recommend either (a) reframing the high-z prediction as a range spanning both relations, (b) providing a quantitative systematic error budget that includes the relation choice, or (c) demonstrating with direct f_esc measurements that one relation is favored at blue beta.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 3] The D24 test is presented as demonstrating "AFM's predictive power," but the procedure inserts the D24 sample's own measured super-Eddington fraction f_D24_E into Eq. (5) and then compares the resulting beta with the D24 beta measurements. This tests the internal consistency of the sSFR-to-beta mapping within the same sample, but it is not an independent prediction of AFM, because the sample's sSFR distribution is used both as an input and as the explanation for the beta data. The claim of predictive power is therefore overstated. A genuinely predictive test would compute f_E(z) from an external sSFR sample and then compare with independently measured beta or f_esc data.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (4)] The super-Eddington fraction f_E(z) is computed assuming sSFR is normally distributed with a constant fractional standard deviation of 83%, taken from measurements at 8<z<10 and applied at all redshifts 0<z<20. The manuscript does not test the sensitivity of f_E(z) to this assumption, nor to a possible redshift dependence of the scatter. Since f_E(z) enters Eq. (5) multiplicatively with f1, an overestimated scatter at intermediate redshifts would bias the fitted f1 and shift the whole f_esc(z) curve. A simple sensitivity test with, e.g., a redshift-dependent sigma or a lognormal distribution would clarify how much of the result relies on this fixed assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The text says the model is fit to the UV slope data using "the model eq. 4," but Eq. (4) gives only the super-Eddington fraction f_E; the actual fit uses Eq. (5) combined with the inverted Chisholm relation. This wording should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [Eq. (4) and Sec. 2] Please clarify whether the assumed normal distribution of sSFR is in linear units or logarithmic units; a fractional standard deviation of 83% is usually described for a lognormal, which is not the same as a normal distribution with sigma = 0.83 times the mean.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption is very dense and lists more than a dozen datasets. Splitting the f_esc and beta comparisons into two panels, or moving the dataset description to a table, would make the figure much more readable.
  4. [Sec. 3] The statement that predictions are in "excellent agreement" with f_esc data is not supported by any quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic. Since the f_esc curve is derived from a fit to beta data, a chi-square or equivalent measure for the f_esc comparison would help the reader judge the agreement.
  5. [Sec. 3, SED-based f_esc points] The sentence about increasing SED-fitting error bars by 3x is ad hoc; please state the specific systematic tests or comparisons that justify this factor, or at least discuss how the conclusions would change if the inflation factor were different.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fesc(z) curve is calibrated against UV slope data but validated against independent fesc measurements.

full rationale

The derivation is a calibrated, falsifiable model rather than a circular one. The free parameters f0, f1, and sSFR* are fitted to UV slope (beta) data using the Chisholm et al. (2022) empirical relation, and the resulting fesc(z) curve is then compared with direct, indirect, and SED-fitting fesc measurements that were not used in the fit. That fesc comparison is therefore an out-of-sample test, so the central claim has independent content. The same fitted parameters also reproduce the beta(z) data by construction, but the paper presents that as a match/interpretation rather than as a new prediction. The AFM framework is inherited from prior self-cited work, but it is supported here by external data, including the Dottorini et al. (2024) sSFR test and the Boyett et al. (2024) EELG super-Eddington fraction, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The acknowledged extrapolation of the Chisholm relation to beta < -2.6, and the paper's admission that current data cannot discriminate between the Chisholm and Jaskot relations, are genuine robustness and calibration limitations affecting the high-redshift amplitude, but they do not reduce the derivation to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fesc prediction rests on three fitted parameters (f0, f1, sSFR*) plus an adopted sSFR scatter; the sSFR(z) scaling and the Chisholm relation are imported from prior literature. The model is a calibrated heuristic rather than a derivation from first principles. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • f0 = 0.007 (+0.008/-0.005)
    Escape fraction of sub-Eddington galaxies, fitted to UV slope data via MCMC in Sec 2.2.
  • f1 = 0.643 (+0.224/-0.207)
    Escape fraction of super-Eddington galaxies, fitted to UV slope data; drops to 0.332 if the Jaskot relation is used instead.
  • sSFR* = 35.439 (+3.313/-4.352) Gyr^-1
    Super-Eddington sSFR threshold, fitted rather than fixed at the AFM fiducial 25 Gyr^-1; the recovered value is close but not equal to the fiducial.
  • sigma_sSFR = 0.83 (fractional standard deviation)
    Observed sSFR scatter at 8<z<10, adopted as a normal distribution and applied at all redshifts; it controls the width of fE(z).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption sSFR(z) scales as 0.64 (1+z)^(3/2) Gyr^-1 when the average star formation efficiency is used (Ferrara 2024a, Eq 3).
    Basis for the redshift dependence of the super-Eddington fraction; imported from prior AFM literature, not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper sSFR is normally distributed with a constant fractional standard deviation of 83% at all redshifts.
    Adopted from observed scatter at 8<z<10 and extrapolated; strongly shapes fE(z) and hence fesc(z).
  • ad hoc to paper The global fesc(z) is the weighted mean of two populations with fixed f0 and f1 (Eq 5).
    Heuristic postulate, not derived from the outflow physics; it is the central model equation.
  • domain assumption The Chisholm fesc-beta relation (Eq 6) remains valid when extrapolated to beta < -2.6.
    The relation is strictly calibrated for beta > -2.6; the fit and high-z predictions use bluer values, and the Jaskot relation gives a factor-two different f1.
  • domain assumption Radiation-driven outflows, rather than supernova feedback, are the dominant mechanism opening escape channels.
    This is the physical premise of AFM and is supported by cited simulations and observations, but it is not independently established in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Redshift evolution of Lyman continuum escape fraction after JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKQ7MCED

@misc{pith2026250510619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Redshift evolution of Lyman continuum escape fraction after JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKQ7MCED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10619}
}
abstract

The LyC escape fraction from galaxies, $f_{\rm esc}$, is strongly boosted by galactic outflows. In the Attenuation-Free Model (AFM) accounting for the properties of $z>10$ galaxies, radiation-driven outflows develop once the galaxy specific star formation rate, ${\rm sSFR} \ge {\rm sSFR}^* \approx 25\ {\rm Gyr}^{-1}$. As the cosmic sSFR increases with redshift, so does $f_{\rm esc}(z)$, which, when globally averaged, grows from 0.007 to 0.6 in $0 < z < 20$. We successfully tested the model on specific data sub-samples. Our predictions are consistent with measurements of $f_{\rm esc}$ up to $z=9.5$, and provide a physical explanation for the observed decreasing trend of the mean UV galaxy spectral slope, $\beta$, towards high-$z$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AFM model predictions for the redshift evolution of fesc (solid black line) and β (solid blue) adopting the Chisholm et al. (2022) relation eq. 6. The grey lines show 200 random samples drawn from the MCMC chains for this case. The thin dashed black and blue lines show the same predictions using the Jaskot et al. (2024, implemented in Flury et al. 2024a) relation. Predictions are compared with available fesc data (b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Specific star formation rate of the D24 sample (691 galaxies, yellow points); the black points show the mean sSFR in four redshift bins. Also shown is the AFM sSFR evolution (eq. 3), and the Super-Eddington regime region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.21054, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.21054

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.21054 2024

  2. [2]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3347 2023

  3. [3]

    I., et al

    Alavi, A., Colbert, J., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd43 Amor´ ın, R. O., Rodr´ ıguez-Henr´ ıquez, M., Fern´ andez, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449175

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd43 2020

  4. [4]

    J., Adams, N

    Austin, D., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10751, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10751

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10751 2024

  5. [5]

    M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Baker, W. M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09070, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09070

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09070 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Cullen, F., et al

    Begley, R., McLure, R. J., Cullen, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf211

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf211 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/115 2014

  8. [8]

    J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.02607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02607

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.02607 2022

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2430

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07256

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cain, C., D’Aloisio, A., & Munoz, J. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08778

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Cen, R., Scarlata, C., et al

    Carr, C. A., Cen, R., Scarlata, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb72f

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1260

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4033

    Terao, Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4033

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2874

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

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S

    Cole, J. W., Papovich, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a6a

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    J., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1211 8 Ferrara et al

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, PhR, 780, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002

    Dayal, P., & Ferrara, A. 2018, PhR, 780, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 4476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1879

    Vallini, L. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1879

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    U., Bomans, D

    Enders, A. U., Bomans, D. J., & Wittje, A. 2023, A&A, 672, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245167

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2024a, A&A, 684, A207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 —

    Ferrara, A. 2024a, A&A, 684, A207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348321 —. 2024b, A&A, 689, A310, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450944

    doi

  20. [28]

    2025a, A&A, 694, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452368

    Ferrara, A., Carniani, S., di Mascia, F., et al. 2025a, A&A, 694, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452368

    doi

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1095

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2025b, A&A, 694, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452707

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Sommovigo, L. 2025b, A&A, 694, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452707

    doi

  23. [31]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, ApJL, 943, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f2

    Travascio, A. 2023, ApJL, 943, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f2

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2024a, LyCsurv, v0.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11392442

    Flury, S., Jaskot, A., & Silveyra, A. 2024a, LyCsurv, v0.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11392442

    doi

  26. [34]

    R., Moran, E

    Flury, S. R., Moran, E. C., & Eleazer, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2421

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Jaskot, A

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

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Saldana-Lopez, A., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12118, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12118

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

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

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

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11609

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11609

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16418

    Gelli, V., Pallottini, A., Salvadori, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16418

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acee80

    Carniani, S. 2023, ApJL, 954, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acee80

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Gnedin, N. Y. 2000, ApJ, 542, 535, doi: 10.1086/317042

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    Y., & Madau, P

    Gnedin, N. Y., & Madau, P. 2022, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 8, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41115-022-00015-5

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, A&A, 602, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730447

    Grazian, A., Giallongo, E., Paris, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730447

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al

    Hainline, K. N., D’Eugenio, F., Jakobsen, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8447

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Rieke, G

    Helton, J. M., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18462, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18462

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    M., et al

    Hogarth, L., Amor´ ın, R., V´ ılchez, J. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa851

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 474, 4514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3115

    doi

  44. [52]

    I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al

    Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab612 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 478, 4851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1378

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Silveyra, A

    Jaskot, A. E., Silveyra, A. C., Plantinga, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5557

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Oey, M

    Jecmen, M. C., & Oey, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 958, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0460

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01067

    Ji, Z., Alberts, S., Zhu, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01067

    2025 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz989

    Kimm, T., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz989

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    Kimm, T., Haehnelt, M., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.15583, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.15583

    Kobayashi, C., & Ferrara, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.15583, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.15583

    2023 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    A., Taylor, A

    Kokorev, V., Ch´ avez Ortiz,´O. A., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12504, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12504

    2025 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    S., Krumholz, M

    Komarova, L., Oey, M. S., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c09

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, A&A, 695, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449997 LyC escape fraction 9

    Kostyuk, I., Ciardi, B., & Ferrara, A. 2025, A&A, 695, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449997 LyC escape fraction 9

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, ApJL, 793, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L5

    Kurczynski, P., Gawiser, E., Rafelski, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L5

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, A&A, 687, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449362

    Leclercq, F., Chisholm, J., King, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449362

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01358

    Llerena, M., Pentericci, L., Napolitano, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01358

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14155. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14155

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    R., Chisholm, J., et al

    Mainali, R., Rigby, J. R., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cd6

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, A&A, 601, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630054

    Marchi, F., Pentericci, L., Guaita, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630054

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2893

    Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2893

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, A&A, 691, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451667

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

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, A&A, 685, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347884

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Calabr` o, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347884

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08268

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Llerena, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08268, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08268

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.14469, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.14469

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    Meiksin, A. A. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 1405, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Beckett, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18711

    2009 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    Mirocha, J., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3578

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20901, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.20901

    Morales, A., Finkelstein, S., Bagley, M., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20901, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.20901

    doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    M., Finkelstein, S

    Morales, A. M., Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 964, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2de4 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Mirocha, J., Chisholm, J., Furlanetto, S. R., & Mason, C. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L37, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    Stark, D. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6604

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07598, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07598

    Nakazato, Y., & Ferrara, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07598, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07598

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfb9

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfb9

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    P., Finkelstein, S

    Narayanan, D., Stark, D. P., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13312, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13312

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 1646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf038

    Nebrin, O., Smith, A., Lorinc, K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf038

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Heckman, T

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T. M., Wang, J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 726, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L7

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    W., Shapley, A., et al

    Pahl, A., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1ab

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, A&A, 677, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    Pallottini, A., & Ferrara, A. 2023, A&A, 677, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347384

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    W., Hu, W., et al

    Papovich, C., Cole, J. W., Hu, W., et al. 2025, Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization Are All Bark and No Bite – Plenty of Ionizing Photons, Low Escape Fractions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08870 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G.,¨Ostlin, G., Costantin, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints...

    2025

  78. [86]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1163

    Pizzati, E., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1163

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Dahle, H., Chisholm, J., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 738, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw0978

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d3

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    J., Katz, H., et al

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.05679, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.05679

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Kannan, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.05679, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.05679

    2023 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2537

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 2963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2591

    Smith, A., Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2591

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    1992, MNRAS, 255, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.4.713

    Terlevich, R., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Franco, J., & Melnick, J. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.4.713

    1992 doi

  87. [95]

    M., & Ferrara, A

    Tomaselli, G. M., & Ferrara, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab876

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 941, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca522 —. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2291 —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.08835, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.08835

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    Vanzella, E., de Barros, S., Vasei, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    2022, A&A, 659, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141590 10 Ferrara et al

    Vanzella, E., Castellano, M., Bergamini, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141590 10 Ferrara et al

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    I., Smith, B

    Wang, X., Teplitz, H. I., Smith, B. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4ab

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al

    Willott, C. J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1470

    Schneider, R. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1470

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19893

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19893

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad125

    Ziparo, F., Ferrara, A., Sommovigo, L., & Kohandel, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad125

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.