<i>JWST</i> PRIMER: a lack of outshining in four normal <b> <i>z</i> = 4</b> − <b>6</b> galaxies from the ALMA-CRISTAL Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present a spatially resolved analysis of four star-forming galaxies at $z = 4.44-5.64$ using data from the JWST Public Release Imaging for Extragalactic Research (PRIMER) and ALMA-[C II] Resolved ISm in STar-forming galaxies with ALma (CRISTAL) surveys to probe the stellar and interstellar medium properties on the sub-${\rm kpc}$ scale. In the $1-5\, \mu {\rm m}$ JWST NIRCam imaging we find that the galaxies are composed of multiple clumps (between 2 and ∼8) separated by $\simeq 5\, {\rm kpc}$, with comparable morphologies and sizes in the rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) and optical. Using BAGPIPES to perform pixel-by-pixel spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting to the JWST data, we show that the star formation rate (SFR) ($\simeq 25\, {\rm M}_{\odot }\,{\rm yr^{ -1}}$) and stellar mass (${\rm log}_{10}(M_{\star }/{\rm M}_{\odot })$ $\simeq 9.5$) derived from the resolved analysis are in close ($\lesssim 0.3\, {\rm dex}$) agreement with those obtained by fitting the integrated photometry. In contrast to studies of lower mass sources, we thus find a reduced impact of outshining of the older (more massive) stellar populations in these normal $z \simeq 5$ galaxies. Our JWST analysis recovers bluer rest-frame UV slopes ($\beta \simeq -2.1$) and younger ages ($\simeq 100\, {\rm Myr}$) than archival values. We find that the dust continuum from ALMA-CRISTAL seen in two of these galaxies correlates, as expected, with regions of redder rest-frame UV slopes and the SED-derived ${A_{\rm V}}$, as well as the peak in the stellar mass map. We compute the resolved ${\rm IRX}$–$\beta$relation, showing that the IRX is consistent with the local starburst attenuation curve and further demonstrating the presence of an inhomogeneous dust distribution within the galaxies. A comparison of the CRISTAL sources to those from the FirstLight zoom-in simulation of galaxies with the same $M_{\star }$ and SFR reveals similar age and colour gradients, suggesting that major mergers may be important in the formation of clumpy galaxies at this epoch.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".