Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

At z≈2–3.5, the argon-to-oxygen ratio in star-forming galaxies is 0.42 times solar, indicating that core-collapse supernovae dominated argon production and that Type Ia supernovae had not yet added much argon.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:15 UTC pith:IH74CICZ

load-bearing objection The stacked Ar/O measurements are a real step forward for representative abundance work at cosmic noon, but the 0.42-solar values hinge on an unpublished calibration with unquantified overlap to the target galaxies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10130 v3 pith:IH74CICZ submitted 2025-12-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

The AURORA Survey: Constraining Chemical Enrichment Pathways at Cosmic Noon with Argon Abundances

Jack Foley , Alice Shapley , Ryan Sanders , Naveen A. Reddy , Michael W. Topping , Thomas M. Stanton , Max Pettini , Fergus Cullen
show 6 more authors
Richard S. Ellis N. M. F\"orster Schreiber Tucker Jones Anthony J. Pahl Leonardo Clarke Natalie Lam
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords argon abundancesalpha elementschemical enrichmentcosmic noonstar-forming galaxiescore-collapse supernovaeType Ia supernovaegalactic chemical evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that star-forming galaxies near the peak of cosmic star formation—around z 2 to 3.5—carry noticeably less argon relative to oxygen than the Sun does. Using two median-stacked composite spectra built from 46 galaxies, it measures Ar/O at roughly 0.42 times the solar ratio in both redshift bins, about 3 sigma below solar. The authors interpret this deficit as evidence that argon in these galaxies came mostly from core-collapse supernovae, with only a minimal contribution from the delayed explosions of Type Ia supernovae. Such a pattern would mean these galaxies formed their stars quickly, on timescales consistent with Milky Way bulge formation rather than the slow build-up of the solar neighborhood. If correct, argon offers a practical way to trace the timing of supernova enrichment at Cosmic Noon, complementing iron, which is hard to measure because it is depleted onto dust grains.

Core claim

The paper reports argon abundances of 0.42+0.12−0.10 solar for the z≈2.26 stack and 0.42+0.12−0.11 solar for the z≈3.15 stack. Both values are about 3 sigma below the solar Ar/O ratio and are statistically indistinguishable from each other, suggesting little evolution across the redshift range. Because argon is co-produced with oxygen in core-collapse supernovae but yield models attribute roughly a third of argon production to Type Ia supernovae, the subsolar Ar/O is read as a signature that Type Ia enrichment had not yet contributed significantly in these galaxies. The authors then compare the measured pairs of Ar/O and oxygen abundance to Milky Way chemical evolution models and find the be

What carries the argument

The central object is an empirical two-dimensional calibration, Equation 7: log(Ar/O) = −0.523 + 1.277 log(Ar3O3) + 0.878 log(O32), where Ar3O3 is the [ArIII] λ7137 / [OIII] λ5008 line ratio and O32 is the [OIII] λ5008 / [OII] λλ3727,29 ratio. The Ar3O3 ratio tracks the ionic argon-to-oxygen ratio, while O32 acts as an ionization correction because argon ionizes at lower energies than oxygen, so a larger fraction of argon sits in higher ionization states. The calibration is fitted to direct-method Ar/O estimates from 45 galaxies and applied to the median-stacked composite spectra; its reported intrinsic scatter of about 0.06 dex is folded into the quoted uncertainties and effectively drives

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the empirical calibration fitted to 45 other galaxies transfers without systematic bias to the median-stacked spectra of the 46 galaxies studied here, and the paper does not quantify how many of the stacked galaxies overlap with the calibration sample or perform the direct-method cross-check that its own data would allow.

What would settle it

Measure the Ar/O ratio directly in the same two composite spectra using the auroral lines the paper says are present ([OIII] λ4363 and [OII] λλ7320,7330), apply an ionization correction, and compare with the calibration-based values; if the direct values come out consistent with solar Ar/O, the reported 3-sigma subsolar claim would collapse.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the subsolar Ar/O measurements are correct, argon at z≈2–3.5 was predominantly produced by core-collapse supernovae, with Type Ia supernovae contributing little by the time these galaxies are observed.
  • The nearly identical Ar/O values in the two redshift bins imply that the balance between core-collapse and Type Ia enrichment did not change significantly between z≈3.2 and z≈2.3.
  • The agreement with a Milky Way Bulge chemical evolution model supports rapid star-formation timescales, around 70–150 million years, rather than the extended star-formation history of the solar neighborhood.
  • Argon can serve as a practical enrichment tracer for distant galaxies, since unlike iron it is not heavily depleted onto dust and can be accessed through a strong-line calibration in cases where auroral lines are too faint for direct abundance measurements.
  • More representative argon samples, the paper argues, could tighten constraints on the relative roles of core-collapse and Type Ia supernovae in the metal enrichment of the early universe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to measure Ar/O directly in the same stacks using the auroral lines the paper notes are present ([OIII] λ4363 and [OII] λλ7320,7330); if the direct values differed substantially from the calibration-based values, the 3-sigma subsolar claim would need to be revised.
  • If argon truly tracks Type Ia enrichment timescales, Ar/O should correlate inversely with specific star-formation rate and stellar age within a sample; checking this correlation in a larger sample would provide an independent consistency test that the paper does not yet perform.
  • The calibration's 0.06 dex scatter, rather than the spectral signal itself, dominates the uncertainty; a calibration trained specifically on z≈2–4 galaxies with direct electron-temperature measurements would likely shrink the error bars and sharpen or weaken the claimed deficit.
  • Because the two redshift bins give identical Ar/O, one could infer that star-formation timescales were similarly short across the whole Cosmic Noon epoch; however, the current uncertainties leave room for a modest evolution that the measurement cannot yet resolve.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents argon abundance measurements for 46 star-forming galaxies at z = 2–3.5 from the AURORA survey, using median-stacked composite spectra in two redshift bins (z = 2.0–2.6, 26 galaxies; z = 2.8–3.5, 20 galaxies). By measuring [ArIII] λ7137/[OIII] λ5008 and O32 from the stacks, and applying an empirical 2D calibration, Eq. (7), the authors infer subsolar Ar/O ratios of 0.42 (Ar/O)⊙ in both bins, each quoted as ~3σ below the solar value. They interpret this as evidence that argon enrichment at Cosmic Noon is dominated by core-collapse supernovae, with minimal contribution from Type Ia supernovae, and compare the ratios with Milky Way chemical evolution models, finding consistency with the Galactic Bulge and implying rapid star-formation timescales. The paper also reports 29 individual detections of [ArIII] and their calibrated Ar/O values.

Significance. If the calibration is valid, this is a valuable representative measurement: it is based on a medium-size sample with stacked spectra rather than individual detections, and it supports the emerging picture (Rogers et al. 2025; Stanton et al. 2025a) that Ar/O is subsolar in high-redshift star-forming galaxies, with important implications for SNe Ia timescales and chemical enrichment models. The paper is careful about bootstrap uncertainties, makes use of uniform AURORA data, and places results in the context of existing literature. However, the central quantitative claim rests entirely on an unpublished empirical calibration, and the manuscript does not demonstrate that this calibration transfers to the stacks. Because the reported 0.42-solar values and their 3σ significance are load-bearing, the current evidence is not sufficient without additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is fitted to 'direct-method Ar/O ratios of 45 AURORA and literature galaxies (R. Sanders et al. 2025, in prep.)' and is then applied to two median-stacked spectra built from 46 AURORA galaxies (§2.1). The manuscript does not state how many of the 45 calibrators are drawn from the same AURORA sample, nor how many appear in each stack. If the calibrators overlap substantially with the stacked galaxies, the agreement is not an independent test; if they do not overlap, the transfer needs justification in terms of line-ratio and metallicity coverage. Please quantify the overlap and provide a held-out or train/test validation, or at minimum a direct-method estimate on the stacks.
  2. [§3.2] The text explicitly notes that '[OIII] λ4363 and [OII]λλ7320,7330 are present in the stacks' but says the paper uses calibrations instead to 'demonstrate their efficacy for galaxies without significant detection of the auroral lines.' The auroral lines in the stacks are the only in-band check on Eq. (7). A 0.1 dex systematic error in the calibration would change the derived Ar/O from 0.42 to roughly 0.34–0.52 (Ar/O)⊙, altering the significance and the GCE age comparison. Please report the stack-based direct-method Ar/O values, or explain specifically why this check cannot be performed.
  3. [§4.2 and §5.2, Table 1] The median Ar/O of individual galaxies with 3σ [ArIII] detections is higher than the stack centroid by 0.03 dex (z=2.26 bin) and 0.1 dex (z=3.15 bin). The manuscript attributes this to intrinsic scatter and median-stacking bias, but this systematically affects the stacked measurements used for the headline result. Since only 29/46 galaxies have individual [ArIII] detections, it is important to quantify how the non-linear median stack and the selection of galaxies without individual detections affect the derived stack ratios. A direct-method cross-check on the stacks would also address this concern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (7)] The coefficients of Eq. (7) are quoted without uncertainties. Since the fit is central, reporting the coefficient errors and the covariance (or at least the slope uncertainties) would help assess calibration transfer.
  2. [§2.2] The paper describes the composite as a median stack in flux, with line ratios then measured from that stack. Please clarify in the text whether the quoted line ratios are the ratio of the measured line fluxes from the median spectrum, and how this relates to the median of the individual line ratios.
  3. [§5.2] The text says 'report an average abundance ratio of log(Ar/O)=2.63±0.12 dex' for Rogers et al. (2025). This appears to be missing a minus sign; the value should be log(Ar/O)=-2.63.
  4. [Throughout] The reference to 'R. Sanders et al. 2025, in prep.' appears in §3.2, while a different 'Sanders et al. 2025' is cited for the oxygen calibration. Please disambiguate these references in the bibliography.
  5. [§5.2] The sentence 'most have oxygen abundances as that are consistent' contains a grammatical error; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Headline Ar/O values are evaluations of a same-team, in-preparation calibration (Eq. 7) applied to stacks from the same AURORA program; overlap is unquantified and the available direct-method check is declined, so the exact 0.42-solar numbers are not independently anchored, although the qualitative subsolar conclusion has external support.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.2, Eq. 7; Sec. 4.1; Sec. 2.1]
    "This relationship is evident in Fig. 3, in which direct-method Ar/O ratios of 45 AURORA and literature galaxies (R. Sanders et al. 2025, in prep.) are correlated with the Ar3O3 ratio and anti-correlated with the O32 ratio. ... yields log(Ar/O) = −0.523 + 1.277 log(Ar3O3) + 0.878 log(O32) (7) ... We use this calibration to determine the Ar/O abundances of our composite spectra and individual galaxies."

    The calibration that produces the headline Ar/O = 0.42 (Ar/O)_sun values is sourced to an unpublished companion paper by the same team (R. Sanders et al. 2025, in prep.) and is then applied to composite spectra and individual galaxies drawn from the same AURORA program (Sec. 2.1, Sec. 4.2). The paper never quantifies how many of the 45 calibrators contribute to the two stacks or to the 29 individual detections, so the reported stack values are, to an unknown degree, in-sample evaluations of the fitted relation rather than out-of-sample measurements. The paper also concedes that the direct-method cross-check was available but not performed ('the auroral emission lines ... are present in the stacks'), leaving the calibration transfer to the stacks unvalidated within this work.

full rationale

The stacking, line measurement, oxygen abundance (Sanders et al. 2025), and GCE comparison are standard and self-contained. The circularity is partial rather than total: the central quantitative claim (0.42-solar Ar/O in both bins, quoted as 3-sigma subsolar) is not a direct measurement; it is the output of Eq. 7, a 2D fit to direct-method Ar/O data from an in-preparation paper by the same authors, applied to the same AURORA sample. Because the calibrator/stack overlap is unquantified and the direct-method check is explicitly declined, the exact numbers and their significance are not independently anchored in this manuscript. However, the qualitative conclusion (subsolar Ar/O at z~2-3.5) is independently supported by Rogers et al. (2025) and Stanton et al. (2025a), and the paper transparently labels the method as an empirical calibration rather than a first-principles prediction. Therefore the finding is score 4 rather than 6+.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are concentrated in the empirical calibration (Eq. 7): three fitted coefficients and a fitted residual scatter that is then treated as an uncertainty term. The redshift bin edges are an additional hand-chosen parameter. The interpretive framework imports the standard ICF/direct-abundance assumptions, the Cardelli extinction law, the SED grid, and the Kobayashi et al. (2020) GCE yields as domain assumptions rather than deriving or testing them.

free parameters (5)
  • Eq. 7 intercept = -0.523
    Fitted to direct-method Ar/O ratios of 45 AURORA and literature galaxies (R. Sanders et al. 2025, in prep.), Sec. 3.2. This coefficient sets the zero-point of all Ar/O measurements in the paper.
  • Eq. 7 slope in log(Ar3O3) = 1.277
    Fitted coefficient in the empirical calibration, Sec. 3.2; the Ar/O result scales linearly with this slope in log space.
  • Eq. 7 slope in log(O32) = 0.878
    Fitted coefficient absorbing the ionization-correction dependence in the empirical calibration, Sec. 3.2.
  • Eq. 7 intrinsic scatter = ~0.06 dex
    Fit residual of Eq. 7 after accounting for measurement errors; the paper convolves this residual into the final reported uncertainties as if it were an independent systematic term (Sec. 3.2).
  • Redshift bin boundaries = z=2.0–2.6 and z=2.8–3.5
    Hand-chosen bin edges (Sec. 2.1); the resulting median composite spectra, and therefore the measured Ar/O values, depend on this choice. The bins also leave a z=2.6–2.8 gap.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The ionization corrections for O and Ar depend mainly on the degree of ionization, tracked by O32, and the 2D linear relation of Eq. 7 captures the residual Ar/O variation with only 0.06 dex scatter.
    Sec. 3.2: the paper replaces the standard ICF treatment with an empirical 2D fit to direct-method abundances. If the ICF for argon has additional dependence (e.g., on density or temperature) not captured by O32, the Ar/O values shift by more than the quoted scatter.
  • domain assumption Gas-phase argon is not significantly depleted onto dust, so the measured nebular Ar/O equals the total Ar/O.
    Implicit throughout; standard for noble gases in H II region analyses, but argon can be locked in grains in some environments (the paper does not discuss dust depletion of argon).
  • domain assumption The nucleosynthetic yields of Kobayashi et al. (2020), including the ~34% SNe Ia contribution to argon, apply to MW-like chemical evolution models transferred to z=2–3.5 galaxies.
    Sec. 5.3: the GCE comparison and the inferred star-formation timescales (70–150 Myr) rest on these MW bulge/Solar Neighborhood models; the paper acknowledges that models tuned to the high-z regime are needed.
  • domain assumption The Cardelli et al. (1989) MW extinction curve combined with Balmer-decrement E(B−V) describes the dust attenuation of high-z galaxies in the stacks.
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. 1: the dust correction applied before stacking uses a MW extinction curve; an SMC/Calzetti-type curve would alter the relative line ratios entering Ar3O3 and O32.
  • domain assumption The SED model grid (delayed-tau SFH, two metallicity/template combinations with Calzetti or Gordon extinction) provides an unbiased stellar continuum for line-flux measurements.
    Sec. 2.1: continuum subtraction and therefore line fluxes depend on the FAST SED fits; the restricted metallicity/dust grid is inherited from the survey methodology.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5204 in / 5769 out tokens · 191363 ms · 2026-08-03T17:15:07.100279+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present argon abundances from a sample of 46 star-forming galaxies at $z=2-3.5$ from the Assembly of Ultradeep Rest-Optical Observations Revealing Astrophysics (AURORA) program. Although argon is an $\alpha-$element produced by Core Collapse Supernovae (CCSNe), the latest supernova yield models suggest additional argon production and enrichment by Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), unlike other $\alpha-$elements such as oxygen. To study the relationship between argon and oxygen abundances, we construct two median-stacked composite spectra for separate $z=2.0-2.6$ and $z=2.8-3.5$ redshift bins, presenting more representative measurements than previous samples that require individual detection of faint lines. Abundance ratios were determined using an empirical calibration based on the strength of the [ArIII]$\lambda7137$ emission line relative to the [OIII]$\lambda5008$ emission line. With this calibration, we estimate argon abundances (Ar/O) of $0.42^{+0.12}_{-0.10}\mbox{(Ar/O)}_{\odot}$ for the $\langle z \rangle = 2.26$ bin and $0.42^{+0.12}_{-0.11}\mbox{(Ar/O)}_{\odot}$ for the $\langle z \rangle = 3.15$ bin, suggesting minimal SNe Ia and dominant CCSNe enrichment in this sample. Comparison of our abundance measurements of $z\sim 2-3$ AURORA galaxies with chemical evolution modeling of Milky Way stars shows consistency with the Milky Way Bulge component, suggesting a rapid star-formation timescale. However, even larger samples of actively star-forming galaxies with available argon abundances, as well as comparisons between argon abundance and other critical galaxy properties (e.g., sSFR) and models (e.g., one tuned specifically to this redshift range) are needed to draw stronger conclusions on the role of argon in galactic chemical enrichment at Cosmic Noon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10130 by Alice Shapley, Anthony J. Pahl, Fergus Cullen, Jack Foley, Leonardo Clarke, Max Pettini, Michael W. Topping, Natalie Lam, Naveen A. Reddy, N. M. F\"orster Schreiber, Richard S. Ellis, Ryan Sanders, Thomas M. Stanton, Tucker Jones.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sample properties of the two redshift bins drawn from AURORA. We display the redshift ranges and counts for the two samples (top) and the location of each target on the Star Forming Main Sequence (SFMS, bottom). We include two SFMS evolution lines from Clarke et al. (2025), corresponding to the 1.4 ≤ z ≤ 2.7 and 2.7 ≤ z ≤ 4 bins included therein. Shading around each line is the 1σ intrinsic scatter of the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Composite Spectra for the hzi = 2.26 (top panels) and hzi = 3.15 (bottom panels) redshift bins. Each composite spectrum is normalized to an Hα flux of unity and shares the same wavelength grid. The spectra have been trimmed to only show data between 3200 and 8000 ˚A. Color-coded insets zoom in on the [OII]λλ3727, 3730 and [NeIII]λ3780 emission lines (blue), the Hβ, [OIII]λ4960 and [OIII]λ5008 lines (green)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the Ar/O abundance ratio for the two redshift samples, with the hzi = 2.26 sample as the blue circle and the hzi = 3.15 sample as the green square. Also included in this plot are the dashed dark blue line and marker for the solar Ar/O ratio value (log(Ar/O)⊙ = −2.31) from Asplund et al. (2021), the centroid and individual points (in orange) from Stanton et al. (2025a), and the inverse-variance… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Diverse Histories and Common Origins of Nitrogen-enhanced JWST Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    76 N/O-enhanced galaxies at 4<z<8.5 are observed shortly after starbursts, either in the WR enrichment phase within 10 Myr or the AGB phase after 30-40 Myr following outflows.

  2. Electron temperature relations and the direct N, O, Ne, S and Ar abundances of 49959 star-forming galaxies in DESI Data Release 2

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    Direct electron-temperature measurements for about 50,000 star-forming galaxies from DESI DR2 yield the largest direct-method abundance catalogue ever built, two record-low-metallicity galaxies, and new trends in N/O,...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Inoue, A. K. 2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213

    2013

  2. [2]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  3. [3]

    A., van der Wel, A., van Dokkum, P., Weaver, J

    Suess, K. A., van der Wel, A., van Dokkum, P., Weaver, J. R., & Whitaker, K. E. 2024, ApJL, 974, L28

    2024

  4. [4]

    W., & Olivier, G

    Pogge, R. W., & Olivier, G. M. 2021, ApJ, 922, 170

    2021

  5. [5]

    Bezanson, R., Franx, M., van der Wel, A., & Weisz, D. R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 140

    2023

  6. [6]

    Weisz, D. R. 2025, ApJ, 979, 249

    2025

  7. [7]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L30

    Bhattacharya, S., Arnaboldi, M., Gerhard, O., Kobayashi, C., & Saha, K. 2025, ApJL, 983, L30

    2025

  8. [8]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 682

    Koornneef, J., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 682

    2000

  9. [9]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  10. [10]

    L., Illingworth, G

    Hamadouche, M. L., Illingworth, G. D., Koekemoer, A. M., Leung, H. H., Lovell, C. C., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Santini, P., Stanton, T. M., & Wild, V. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325

    2024

  11. [11]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

    2003

  12. [12]

    A., Stark, D

    Jones, T., Kriek, M., Reddy, N. A., Stark, D. P., & Tang, M. 2023, ApJ, 957, 81

    2023

  13. [13]

    A., Stark, D

    Jones, T., Kriek, M., Reddy, N. A., Stark, D. P., & Tang, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 81

    2023

  14. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06681

    Karthikeyan, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06681

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    B., Bento, T., Reddy, N

    Brammer, G. B., Bento, T., Reddy, N. A., & Kehoe, E. 2024, ApJ, 977, 133

    2024

  16. [16]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 486

    2009

  17. [17]

    & van Dokkum, P

    Conroy, C. & van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 71

    2012

  18. [18]

    P., Mannucci, F., McLeod, D

    Hamadouche, M., Hathi, N. P., Mannucci, F., McLeod, D. J., Pentericci, L., Saxena, A., Talia, M., & Zamorani, G. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 903

    2021

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06622 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., Suess, K

    Kumari, N., Amiri, A., Cresci, G., Kobayashi, C., Cullen, F., Feltre, A., & Maiolino, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06622 de Graaff, A., Rix, H.-W., Carniani, S., Suess, K. A.,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    C., Willmer, C

    Williams, C. C., Willmer, C. N. A., & Willott, C. 2024, A&A, 684, A87

    2024

  21. [21]

    A., & Adelberger, K

    Reddy, N. A., & Adelberger, K. L. 2006, ApJ, 646, 107

    2006

  22. [22]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 279

    2003

  23. [23]

    J., & Scott, P

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 179

    2010

  24. [24]

    C., & Willott, C

    Rinaldi, P., Robertson, B., Williams, C. C., & Willott, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18055

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955

    2006

  26. [26]

    S., & Faisst, A

    Ellis, R. S., & Faisst, A. L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 148

    2025

  27. [27]

    P., & Ellis, R

    Jones, T., Stark, D. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 191 14

    2018

  28. [28]

    Oesch, P., & Pahl, A. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17381

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179

    2020

  30. [30]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 138

    Kobayashi, C., Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 138

    2020

  31. [31]

    2000, ApJ, 539, 26

    Kobayashi, C., Tsujimoto, T., & Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 539, 26

    2000

  32. [32]

    H., Conroy, C., Suess, K

    Kriek, M., Price, S. H., Conroy, C., Suess, K. A., Mowla, L., Pasha, I., Bezanson, R., van Dokkum, P., & Barro, G. 2019, ApJL, 880, L31

    2019

  33. [33]

    D., Marchesini, D., & Quadri, R

    Illingworth, G. D., Marchesini, D., & Quadri, R. F. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 700, 221

    2009

  34. [34]

    A., Siana, B., & Clarke, L

    Coil, A., Kriek, M., Mobasher, B., Reddy, N. A., Siana, B., & Clarke, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22547

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    2025, SSRv, 221, 23

    Lodders, K., Bergemann, M., & Palme, H. 2025, SSRv, 221, 23

    2025

  36. [36]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  37. [37]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 773

    Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773

    2006

  38. [38]

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Brandt, T. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3282

    2012

  39. [39]

    & Greggio, L

    Matteucci, F. & Greggio, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 279 M´ endez-Delgado, J. E., Kreckel, K., Esteban, C., Garc ´ ıa-Rojas, J., Carigi, L., Sander, A. A. C., Palla, M., Chru´ sli´ nska, M., De Looze, I., Rela˜ no, M., van der

    1986

  40. [40]

    A., Reyes-Rodr ´ ıguez, E., & S´ anchez, S

    Giessen, S. A., Reyes-Rodr ´ ıguez, E., & S´ anchez, S. F. 2024, A&A, 690, A248

    2024

  41. [41]

    L., & Gieles, M

    Bhattacharya, S., Sanders, J. L., & Gieles, M. 2025, MNRAS

    2025

  42. [42]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    2013

  43. [43]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Giavalisco, M., Ji, Z., Jung, I., Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Pirzkal, N., Rafelski, M., & Weiner, B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 22

    2022

  44. [44]

    P., & Shapley, A

    Hunt, M. P., & Shapley, A. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 569, 742

    2002

  45. [45]

    C., Cibinel, A., Holden, B., Labb´ e, I., Magee, D., Morselli, L., Nelson, E

    Atek, H., Carollo, M. C., Cibinel, A., Holden, B., Labb´ e, I., Magee, D., Morselli, L., Nelson, E. J., & Wilkins, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 56

    2018

  46. [46]

    A., Shapley, A

    Reddy, N. A., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Topping, M. W., Ellis, R. S., Pettini, M., Brammer, G., Cullen, F., Forster Schreiber, N. M., Khostovan, A. A., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., Narayanan, D., Oesch, P. A., Pahl, A. J., Steidel, C. C., & Berg, D. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    E., Erb, D

    Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., & Dickinson, M. 2008, ApJS, 175, 48

    2008

  48. [48]

    A., Topping, M

    Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., & Brammer, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 83 Rodr ´ ıguez, M. & Rubin, R. H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 900

    2023

  49. [49]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 964, L12

    Raptis, M., & von Raesfeld, C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 964, L12

    2024

  50. [50]

    Law, D. R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18257

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    M., & Barro, G

    Zick, T., Fornasini, F. M., & Barro, G. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2600

    2021

  52. [52]

    L., Siana, B., Mobasher, B., Shivaei, I., Price, S

    Kriek, M., Coil, A. L., Siana, B., Mobasher, B., Shivaei, I., Price, S. H., Freeman, W. R., Azadi, M., Leung, G. C. K., Fetherolf, T., Zick, T. O., Groot, L. d., Barro, G., & Fornasini, F. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L11

    2019

  53. [53]

    L., Mobasher, B., Shivaei, I., Dav´ e, R., Azadi, M., Price, S

    Kriek, M., Siana, B., Coil, A. L., Mobasher, B., Shivaei, I., Dav´ e, R., Azadi, M., Price, S. H., Leung, G., Freeman, W. R., Fetherolf, T., de Groot, L., Zick, T., & Barro, G. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19

    2021

  54. [54]

    H., & de Groot, L

    Shivaei, I., Price, S. H., & de Groot, L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 138 15

    2015

  55. [55]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05273

    Kehoe, E. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    T., & Kehoe, E

    Clarke, L., Donnan, C. T., & Kehoe, E. 2025, The AURORA Survey: High-Redshift Empirical Metallicity Calibrations from Electron Temperature Measurements at z=2-10

    2025

  57. [57]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54 —. 2024b, ApJ, 962, 24

    2023

  58. [58]

    v., & Wuyts, S

    Dokkum, P. v., & Wuyts, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 21

    2019

  59. [59]

    L., Mobasher, B., Siana, B., Shivaei, I., Freeman, W

    Kriek, M., Coil, A. L., Mobasher, B., Siana, B., Shivaei, I., Freeman, W. R., Azadi, M., Price, S. H., Leung, G. C. K., Fetherolf, T., Groot, L. d., Zick, T., Fornasini, F. M., & Barro, G. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L35

    2019

  60. [60]

    L., Pettini, M., Barmby, P., & Huang, J

    Adelberger, K. L., Pettini, M., Barmby, P., & Huang, J. 2005, ApJ, 626, 698

    2005

  61. [61]

    A., Shapley, A

    Shivaei, I., Reddy, N. A., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., Siana, B., Mobasher, B., Coil, A. L., Freeman, W. R., Sanders, R., Price, S. H., Groot, L. d., & Azadi, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 98

    2015

  62. [62]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

    2014

  63. [63]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.00705

    Taylor, E. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.00705

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    L., Scholte, D., & Topping, M

    Sanders, R. L., Scholte, D., & Topping, M. W. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3102

    2024

  65. [65]

    A., & Trainor, R

    Reddy, N. A., & Trainor, R. F. 2016, ApJ, 826, 159

    2016

  66. [66]

    L., Rudie, G

    Strom, A. L., Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., & Trainor, R. F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 116

    2022

  67. [67]

    C., Chen, Y., & Law, D

    Steidel, C. C., Chen, Y., & Law, D. R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 958, L11

    2023

  68. [68]

    Pettini, M., & Reddy, N. A. 2017, ApJ, 836, 164

    2017

  69. [69]

    Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., & de Oliveira, C. M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 673

    2005

  70. [70]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1979, ApJ, 229, 1046

    1979

  71. [71]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 1707

    Pettini, M., & Schaerer, D. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1707

    2025

  72. [72]

    W., Shapley, A

    Topping, M. W., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., Sanders, R. L., Coil, A. L., Kriek, M., Mobasher, B., & Siana, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1652 16

    2020

  73. [73]

    Molyneux, S., & Rigby, J. R. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3301

    2024

  74. [74]

    2024, A&A, 685, A103

    Krogager, J.-K., & Ramburuth-Hurt, T. 2024, A&A, 685, A103

    2024

  75. [75]

    1962, ApJS, 6, 407

    Wallerstein, G. 1962, ApJS, 6, 407

    1962

  76. [76]

    Hoof, P. A. M., & Williams, R. J. R. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3100

    2014

  77. [77]

    Hayes, M., & Kim, K. J. 2025, ApJ, 980, 33

    2025