Quantifying spectroscopic flux variations between <i>JWST</i> NIRISS and NIRSpec: slit losses in emission line measurements of <i>z</i> ∼ 1–3 galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We analyse James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) and Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) spectroscopic observations in the Abell 2744 galaxy cluster field. From approximately 120 candidates, we identify 12 objects with at least two prominent emission lines among $\left[\mathrm{ O}\, {\small {II}}\right] \lambda 3727$, $\mathrm{H}\,\beta \, \lambda 4861$, $\left[\mathrm{ O}\, {\small {III}}\right] \lambda 4959$, $\left[\mathrm{ O}\, {\small {III}}\right] \lambda 5007$, and $\mathrm{H}\,\alpha \, \lambda 6563$ that are spectroscopically confirmed by both instruments. Our key findings reveal systematic differences between the two spectrographs based on source morphology and shutter aperture placement. Compact objects show comparable or higher integrated flux in NIRSpec relative to NIRISS (within 1$\sigma$ uncertainties), while extended sources consistently display higher flux in NIRISS measurements. This pattern reflects NIRSpec’s optimal coverage for compact objects while potentially undersampling extended sources. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that NIRSpec recovers at least 63 per cent of NIRISS-measured flux when the slit covers ${>}15~{{\ \rm per\, cent}}$ of the source or when $R_\mathrm{ e}< 1\,$kpc. For lower coverage or larger effective radii, the recovered flux varies from 24 per cent to 63 per cent. When studying the $\mathrm{H}\,\alpha \, \lambda 6563$/$\left[\mathrm{ O}\, {\small {III}}\right] \lambda 5007$ emission line ratio, we observe that measurements from these different spectrographs can vary by up to $\sim$0.3 dex, with significant implications for metallicity and star formation rate characterizations for individual galaxies. These results highlight the importance of considering instrumental effects when combining multi-instrument spectroscopic data and demonstrate that source morphology critically influences flux recovery between slit-based and slitless spectroscopic modes in JWST observations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".