This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

JWST Identification of Extremely Low C/N Galaxies with [N/O]0.5\gtrsim 0.5 at z610z\sim 6-10
Evidencing the Early CNO-Cycle Enrichment and a Connection with Globular Cluster Formation

Yuki Isobe Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan isobe@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp Masami Ouchi National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Department of Astronomical Science, SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Osawa 2-21-1, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-8588, Japan Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan Nozomu Tominaga National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Konan University, 8-9-1 Okamoto, Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan Department of Astronomical Science, SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Osawa 2-21-1, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-8588, Japan Kuria Watanabe Department of Astronomical Science, SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Osawa 2-21-1, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-8588, Japan Kimihiko Nakajima National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan Hiroya Umeda Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Hidenobu Yajima Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ten-nodai, 1-1-1 Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan Yuichi Harikane Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Hajime Fukushima Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ten-nodai, 1-1-1 Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan Yi Xu Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Yoshiaki Ono Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Yechi Zhang Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
(Accepted for publication in ApJ)
Abstract

We present chemical abundance ratios of 70 star-forming galaxies at z4z\sim 4–10 observed by the JWST/NIRSpec ERO, GLASS, and CEERS programs. Among the 70 galaxies, we have pinpointed 2 galaxies, CEERS_01019 at z=8.68z=8.68 and GLASS_150008 at z=6.23z=6.23, with extremely low C/N ([C/N]1\lesssim-1), evidenced with C iii]λλ\lambda\lambda1907,1909, N iii]λ\lambda1750, and N iv]λλ\lambda\lambda1483,1486, which show high N/O ratios ([N/O]0.5\gtrsim 0.5) comparable with the one of GN-z11 regardless of whether stellar or AGN radiation is assumed. Such low C/N and high N/O ratios found in CEERS_01019 and GLASS_150008 (additionally identified in GN-z11) are largely biased towards the equilibrium of the CNO cycle, suggesting that these 3 galaxies are enriched by metals processed by the CNO cycle. On the C/N vs. O/H plane, these 3 galaxies do not coincide with Galactic Hii regions, normal star-forming galaxies, and nitrogen-loud quasars with asymptotic giant branch stars, but globular-cluster (GC) stars, indicating a connection with GC formation. We compare C/O and N/O of these 3 galaxies with those of theoretical models, and find that these 3 galaxies are explained by scenarios with dominant CNO-cycle materials, i.e. Wolf-Rayet stars, supermassive (103105M10^{3}-10^{5}\ M_{\odot}) stars, and tidal disruption events, interestingly with a requirement of frequent direct collapses. For all the 70 galaxies, we present measurements of Ne/O, S/O, and Ar/O, together with C/O and N/O. We identify 4 galaxies with very low Ne/O, log(Ne/O)<1.0\log(\rm Ne/O)<-1.0, indicating abundant massive (30M\gtrsim 30\ M_{\odot}) stars.

High-redshift galaxies (734); Galaxy chemical evolution (580); Galaxy formation (595); Star formation (1569)
software: astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013; The Astropy Collaboration, 2018; Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022), PyNeb (Luridiana et al., 2015), Cloudy (Ferland et al., 2013)
\keepXColumns

1 Introduction

Chemical abundance ratios of the inter-stellar medium (ISM) in early galaxies are crucial to understanding stellar nucleosynthesis. Local dwarf star-forming galaxies have α\alpha-to-oxygen (α\alpha/O) ratios such as neon-to-oxygen (Ne/O) that are around solar abundances and remain mostly constant for their gas-phase metallicity (e.g., Izotov et al., 2006; Kojima et al., 2021; Isobe et al., 2022). These findings suggest that the majority of α\alpha elements are produced by massive stars evolving into core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) and/or hypernovae (HNe; e.g., Nomoto et al. 2013). On the other hand, nitrogen-to-oxygen (N/O) ratios of star-forming galaxies increase with metallicity (e.g., Izotov et al., 2006; Pilyugin et al., 2012; Kojima et al., 2021; Isobe et al., 2022), thought to originate from primary oxygen production by massive stars and secondary nitrogen production by low and intermediate-mass metal-rich stars evolving to asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars (e.g., Vincenzo et al., 2016). Similarly, carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratios of star-forming galaxies increase with metallicity due to massive stars and AGB stars (e.g., Berg et al., 2019).

Before the arrival of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), these kinds of chemical abundance studies were restricted to at most intermediate redshifts, even with stacking analysis (Steidel et al., 2016) or lensed objects (e.g., Kojima et al., 2017). However, Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) on JWST can spectroscopically observe a near-infrared (NIR) wavelength range of 1–5 μ\mum 10–1000 times more deeply than other spectrographs. This great advancement has led to several emission line detections of high-redshift (z4z\gtrsim 4) galaxies in restframe ultraviolet (UV) to optical ranges, which are vital for chemical abundance measurements. Shortly after Early Release Observations (ERO; Pontoppidan et al. 2022; PID: 2736) became public, Arellano-Córdova et al. (2022) have reported Ne/O ratios of 3 ERO galaxies and the C/O ratio of one ERO galaxy at z>7z>7. The 3 and 1 galaxies have Ne/O and C/O ratios comparable to those of local galaxies at a given metallicity, respectively.

However, Jones et al. (2023) have found that a z=6.23z=6.23 galaxy observed by the GLASS-JWST Early Release Science (ERS) program (hereafter GLASS; Treu et al. 2022; PID: 1324) has a very low log(C/O)\log(\rm C/O) value of 1.01±0.22-1.01\pm 0.22. As the low C/O value is consistent with those expected from yields of pure core-collapse supernovae (Nomoto et al., 2013), Jones et al. (2023) have interpreted the galaxy as having a young chemical composition where carbon production by AGB stars is negligible.

Moreover, GN-z11 at z=10.6z=10.6, photometricly identified by Oesch et al. (2016) and spectroscopically confirmed by the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES; Bunker et al. 2023), has a super-solar value of log(N/O)0.5\log(\rm N/O)\gtrsim-0.5 (Cameron et al., 2023; Senchyna et al., 2023), which is significantly higher than those of local galaxies at a given metallicity. Given the ultra-high redshift of z=10.6z=10.6 corresponding to 440 Myr after the Big Bang, nitrogen production by AGB stars is difficult to explain the N/O enhancement of GN-z11 (e.g., Cameron et al., 2023). Since the report, several studies have been trying to explain the high N/O ratio of GN-z11 (see Section 4.3 for more details). However, it remains unknown whether there is another galaxy with super-solar N/O ratios at high redshift. The carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio has also not been studied, although it is usually assumed that both carbon and nitrogen originate from AGB stars.

Furthermore, given that chemical evolution models (Watanabe et al., 2023) predict significant changes of Ne/O ratios from the solar abundances at the early formation phase (more details in Section 5.2), Ne/O ratios potentially evolve toward higher redshifts.

The aim of this paper is to study the neon, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen abundances of high-zz galaxies using data from the NIRSpec public surveys to characterize the nature of star formation at high redshifts. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the data and sample we use. Our analysis is described in Section 3. We report and discuss our results of nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen abundances in Sections 4. Results and discussions of Ne/O ratios are described in 5. Our findings are summarized in Section 6. We assume a standard Λ\LambdaCDM cosmology with parameters of (Ωm\Omega_{\rm m}, ΩΛ\Omega_{\rm\Lambda}, H0H_{0}) = (0.3, 0.7, 70 km s1{\rm s}^{-1} Mpc1{\rm Mpc}^{-1}). Throughout this paper, we use the solar abundance ratios of Asplund et al. (2021). The notation [A/B] is defined as log(A/B)\log(\rm A/B) subtracted by the solar abundance log(A/B)\log(\rm A/B)_{\odot}.

2 Data and Sample

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Emission line detections of GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019. (Left) 1′′×1′′1^{\prime\prime}\times 1^{\prime\prime} JWST/NIRCam image with blue/green/red corresponding to F150W/F277W/F444W. (Right) Smoothed 1D and 2D spectra around N iv], O iii], N iii], and C iii] shown by the black solid lines and the color maps, respectively. The emission lines are highlighted in yellow, while the highlights for the undetected emission lines are omitted. Restframe wavelengths of the emission lines are shown by the vertical black dotted lines. The horizontal gray lines denote the continuum level. The horizontal white lines on the 2D spectra indicate the extraction aperture for the 1D spectra.

We utilize JWST/NIRSpec data from the Early Release Observations (ERO; Pontoppidan et al. 2022), taken in the SMACS 0723 lensing cluster field (hereafter referred to as ERO data), the GLASS survey (Treu et al. 2022; hereafter referred to as GLASS data), and the CEERS survey (Finkelstein et al. 2022; hereafter referred to as CEERS data). The ERO data were acquired using medium-resolution (R1000R\sim 1000) filter-grating pairs of F170LP-G235M and F290LP-G395M, covering the wavelength ranges of 1.7–3.1 and 2.9–5.1 μ\mum, respectively. The total exposure time for the ERO data is 4.86 hours for each filter-grating pair. The GLASS data were collected using high-resolution (R2700R\sim 2700) filter-grating pairs of F100LP-G140H, F170LP-G235H, and F290LP-G395H, covering the wavelength ranges of 1.0–1.6, 1.7–3.1, and 2.9–5.1 μ\mum, respectively. The total exposure time for the GLASS data is 4.9 hours for each filter-grating pair. The CEERS data were obtained using medium-resolution filter-grating pairs of F100LP-G140M, F170LP-G235M, and F290LP-G395M, covering the wavelength ranges of 1.0–1.6, 1.7–3.1, and 2.9–5.1 μ\mum, respectively. The total exposure time for the CEERS data is 0.86 hours for each filter-grating pair.

We use spectroscopic data that has been reduced by Nakajima et al. (2023). Nakajima et al. (2023) have extracted the raw data from the MAST archive and performed level-2 and 3 calibrations using the JWST Science Calibration Pipeline (ver.1.8.5; Bushouse et al. 2022) with the reference file jwst_1028.pmap, whose flux calibration is based on in-flight flat data. Checking the data, we identify 5, 15, and 50 galaxies at z>4z>4 in the ERO, GLASS, and CEERS data, respectively. We refer to these 70 (=5+15+50=5+15+50) galaxies as our sample galaxies, hereafter.

3 Analysis

3.1 Flux Measurement

We measure emission-line fluxes by fitting a Gaussian function convolved by line-spread functions that Isobe et al. (2023) have derived from in-flight NIRSpec data of a planetary nebula (PI: J. Muzerolle; PID: 1125). To measure weak emission lines accurately, we fix redshift and velocity dispersion of the Gaussian function to those of [O iii]λλ\lambda\lambda4959,5007. To derive Ne/O, C/O, and N/O ratios, we explore the following line detections: [Ne iii]λ\lambda3869 (for neon abundance), C iii]λλ\lambda\lambda1907,1909 (for carbon abundance), N iii]λ\lambda1750111We refer to the quintet of N iii] lines at restframe 1747, 1749, 1750, 1752, and 1754 Å as N iii]λ\lambda1750 in this paper. and N iv]λλ\lambda\lambda1483,1486 (for nitrogen abundance), [O ii]λλ\lambda\lambda3727,3729, [O iii]λ\lambda5007, and O iii]λλ\lambda\lambda1661,1666 (for oxygen abundance), [O iii]λ\lambda4363 (for electron temperature TeT_{\rm e}), and Balmer lines of Hα\alpha, Hβ\beta, and Hγ\gamma (for hydrogen abundance and dust correction). Hereafter, we just write [Ne iii], C iii], N iii], N iv], [O ii], [O iii], and O iii] as meaning [Ne iii]λ\lambda3869, C iii]λλ\lambda\lambda1907,1909, N iii]λ\lambda1750, N iv]λλ\lambda\lambda1483,1486, [O ii]λλ\lambda\lambda3727,3729, [O iii]λ\lambda5007, and O iii]λλ\lambda\lambda1661,1666, respectively, for simplicity. Thirty-five and 7 of our sample galaxies have S/N>3S/N>3 detections of [Ne iii] and C iii], respectively. We find that one of our sample galaxies, GLASS_150008, has a detection of N iii] with S/N=4.2S/N=4.2. We also identify the detection of N iv] (S/N=4.3S/N=4.3) from one of our sample galaxies, CEERS_01019, which has also been reported by Larson et al. (2023).

Figure 1 shows JWST/NIRCam images222The imaging data of GLASS_150008 are drawn from the UNCOVER (Bezanson et al., 2022) website (https://jwst-uncover.github.io/), while the imaging data of CEERS_01019 are taken from the CEERS survey (Finkelstein et al., 2022) and reduced by Harikane et al. (2023b). and spectra around N iv], O iii], N iii], and C iii] of GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019. The O iii], N iii], and C iii] of GLASS_150008 and the N iv] of CEERS_01019 have the S/NS/N ratios larger than 4. We note that GLASS_150008 has the ratio of each line flux in the N iii]λ\lambda1750 quintet to the total flux of the quintet in agreement within a 1σ\sigma error level with that based on the electron density of 104\lesssim 10^{4} cm-3 derived from the observed high C iii]λ\lambda1907/C iii]λ\lambda1909 ratio.

3.2 Emission-line Diagnostics

Refer to caption
Figure 2: N iii]/O iii] (top left), N iv]/O iii] (bottom left), C iii]/N iii] (top right), and C iii]/N iv] (bottom right) ratios as a function of N iv]/N iii]. Observed emission-line ratios of GLASS_150008, CEERS_01019, and GN-z11 are represented by the double red circle, the red square, and the magenta square, respectively. The emission-line ratios of GN-z11 are measured by Maiolino et al. (2023) and Bunker et al. (2023). The blue and cyan curves show the Cloudy (Ferland et al., 2013) photoionization models with ([N/O], [C/N])=(0])=(0, 0) based on the stellar and AGN radiations, respectively. The green and yellow curves denote the photoionization models with ([N/O], [C/N])=(1])=(1, 1-1) based on the stellar and AGN radiations, respectively. Line styles of these curves (solid, dashed, and dotted) correspond to the assumed metallicities (log(Z/Z)=0.25\log(Z/Z_{\odot})=0.25, 0.5-0.5, and 1-1, respectively). Detailed measurements of the N/O and C/N ratios are made in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.

The left panels of Figure 2 compare N iii]/O iii] and N iv]/O iii] ratios of GLASS_150008 (double red circle) and CEERS_01019 (red square) with those of GN-z11 (magenta square) as a function of N iv]/N iii]. The N iii] and N iv] fluxes from Maiolino et al. (2023) and the O iii] upper limit from Bunker et al. (2023)333Originally reported as 2σ2\sigma upper limit in Bunker et al. (2023) but converted to 3σ3\sigma upper limit for consistency with our flux measurements in Section 3.1. are scaled by C iii] lines. We find that GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019 have high N iii]/O iii] and N iv]/O iii] ratios, respectively, both of which are comparable to those of GN-z11, which is reported to have a super-solar N/O ratio (Section 1). The right panels of Figure 2 also show that GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019 have low C iii]/N iii] and C iii]/N iv] ratios, respectively, both of which are comparable to those of GN-z11.

To compare the observed emission-line ratios, we construct photoionization models using Cloudy (Ferland et al., 2013) for both stellar and AGN radiations. To model young star-forming galaxies, we use BPASS (Stanway & Eldridge, 2018) binary stellar radiations under the assumptions of the instantaneous star-formation history with the stellar age of 10 Myr, upper star mass cut of 100 MM_{\odot} with the Salpeter (1955) initial mass function (IMF), and the hydrogen density nHn_{\rm H} of 300 cm-3. The nHn_{\rm H} value is inferred from a typical value of the electron density (nen_{\rm e}) of 300\gtrsim 300 cm-3 in the ISM of z>4z>4 galaxies (Isobe et al., 2023). We also fix He/H and metal-to-oxygen ratios to be the solar abundances. We vary O/H and ionization parameter (UU) values within the ranges of 2[-2\leq[O/H]1]\leq 1 and 3.5log(U)0.5-3.5\leq\log(U)\leq-0.5 in 0.25 and 0.25 increments, respectively. We set the stellar metallicity equal to the nebular metallicity defined by the O/H ratio. We refer to this model as the young stellar model, hereafter. We also construct the photoionization models for extremely young star-forming galaxies with very massive stars (extremely young massive stellar model, hereafter), assuming the stellar age of 1 Myr and upper star mass cut of 300 MM_{\odot}. The other parameters are the same as those of the young stellar model. We also compute the stellar photoionization models with [N/O]=1]=1, whose other parameters are the same as those of the young stellar model and extremely young massive stellar model.

We also construct AGN photoionization models whose incident radiation is parameterized by the following 4 parameters: the big-bump temperature TBBT_{\rm BB}, the X-ray to UV ratio αOX\alpha_{\rm OX}, the low-energy slope of the big-bump component αUV\alpha_{\rm UV}, and the X-ray component slope αX\alpha_{\rm X}. Typical AGNs have αOX1.4\alpha_{\rm OX}\sim-1.4 (Zamorani et al., 1981) and αUV0.5\alpha_{\rm UV}\sim-0.5 (Francis, 1993; Elvis et al., 1994). We refer to the AGN model with the parameter set of TBB=1.5×105T_{\rm BB}=1.5\times 10^{5} K, αOX=1.4\alpha_{\rm OX}=-1.4, αUV=0.5\alpha_{\rm UV}=-0.5, and αX=1.0\alpha_{\rm X}=-1.0 as the default AGN model. The flux density per frequency fνf_{\nu} is expressed by:

fν=ναUVexp(hν/kTBB)exp(kTIR/hν)+aναX,f_{\nu}=\nu^{\alpha_{\rm UV}}\exp(-h\nu/kT_{\rm BB})\exp(-kT_{\rm IR}/h\nu)+a\nu^{\alpha_{\rm X}}, (1)

where aa is a coefficient corresponding to αOX\alpha_{\rm OX} and TIRT_{\rm IR} is an infrared cutoff temperature at kTIR=0.01kT_{\rm IR}=0.01 Ryd. The continuum above 100 keV is also assumed to cut off by ν2\nu^{-2}. Using the AGN radiation, we calculate emission line ratios under the assumption of nH=300n_{\rm H}=300 cm-3. We vary O/H, UU, and N/O within the ranges of 2[-2\leq[O/H]1]\leq 1, 3.5log(U)0.5-3.5\leq\log(U)\leq-0.5, 0[0\leq[N/O]2]\leq 2, and 1[-1\leq[C/O]0]\leq 0 in 0.25, 0.25, 1, and 1 increments, respectively. We also fix He/H and metal-to-oxygen ratios other than N/O to be the solar abundances. Note that different assumptions of nHn_{\rm H} from 10 to 10610^{6} cm-3 can change key emission-line ratios of N iii]/O iii], C iii]/O iii]. and C iii]/N iii] by only 0.1\lesssim 0.1 dex.

In Figure 2, we plot the young stellar models with [N/O]=0]=0 and [C/N]=0]=0 in blue, the defalut AGN models with [N/O]=0]=0 and [C/N]=0]=0 in cyan, the young stellar models with [N/O]=1]=1 and [C/N]=1]=-1 in green, and the default AGN models with [N/O]=1]=1 and [C/N]=1]=-1 in yellow. We find that the high N iii]/O iii] ratios of GLASS_150008 and GN-z11, as well as the high N iv]/O iii] ratios of CEERS_01019 and GN-z11, are larger than those predicted by both the young stellar model and the default AGN model with [N/O]=0]=0 (blue and cyan). Similarly, the low C iii]/N iii] and C iii]/N iv] ratios in the 3 galaxies are comparable to those of the models with [C/N]=1]=-1 (green and yellow). These results indicate that the 3 galaxies have very high N/O and low C/N ratios significantly above and below the solar abundance, respectively. These results are not likely affected by the metallicity changes from log(Z/Z)=1\log(\rm Z/Z_{\odot})=-1 (blue) to 0.25 (red) as shown in Figure 2, while for accuracy, we derive metallicities first in Sections 3.3 and 3.5.

3.3 Nebular Property

We derive color excesses E(BV)E(B-V) from Balmer line ratios of Hβ\beta/Hα\alpha, Hγ\gamma/Hα\alpha, and Hγ\gamma/Hβ\beta as many as possible by assuming the dust attenuation curve of Calzetti et al. (2000) and the case B recombination. Intrinsic values of the Balmer line ratios are calculated by PyNeb (Luridiana et al. 2015; v1.1.15). If none of the above Balmer line ratios are available, we use a median value of E(BV)=0.07E(B-V)=0.07 for the other galaxies in our sample. Using the E(BV)E(B-V) values and Calzetti et al. (2000)’s curve, we correct emission-line ratios for dust attenuation.

For the 9 galaxies with the measurements of electron temperatures of O iii (Te(Oiii)T_{\rm e}(\rm O\,\textsc{iii})) by Nakajima et al. (2023), we use the TeT_{\rm e} values and their errors. In addition, we derive TeT_{\rm e}(O iii) values of 5 galaxies with [O iii]λ\lambda4363 and/or O iii]λ\lambda1666. The other galaxies in our sample are assumed to have TeT_{\rm e}(O iii)=15000)=15000 K with 1σ\sigma uncertainty of 5000 K. We calculate TeT_{\rm e}(O ii) from TeT_{\rm e}(O iii) and the empirical relation of Garnett (1992). We assume nen_{\rm e} values to be 300 cm-3.

We derive O+/H+ from [O ii]/Hβ\beta and TeT_{\rm e}(O ii) and O2+/H+ from [O iii]λλ\lambda\lambda4959,5007/Hβ\beta and TeT_{\rm e}(O iii). In our sample galaxies where only [O ii] upper limits are present, we presume the smallest values of [O ii] fluxes to be the ones obtained from [O iii] under the assumption of log(U)=1\log(U)=-1. For these galaxies, we also suppose the true and maximum values of [O ii] fluxes to be their 1σ\sigma and 3σ\sigma upper limits, respectively. For our sample galaxies where [O ii] falls outside the wavelength coverage of NIRSpec, we assume the true [O ii] fluxes of the galaxies to be [O iii] divided by a median [O iii]/[O ii] ratio of the other galaxies in our sample. The minimum and maximum values are assumed to be [O iii] divided by [O iii]/[O ii] at log(U)=1\log(U)=-1 and 3-3, respectively. We then obtain gas-phase metallicity 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) from the equation O/H=O+/H++O2+/H+{\rm O/H}={\rm O}^{+}/{\rm H}^{+}+{\rm O}^{2+}/{\rm H}^{+} by ignoring neutral oxygen and O3+ and higher-order oxygen ions as in e.g., Izotov et al. (2006).

We include errors of the used fluxes as well as uncertainties of the assumptions of TeT_{\rm e} and [O ii] for some of our sample galaxies into 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) errors by Monte Carlo simulations. We derive 1000 values of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) with TeT_{\rm e} and flux values such as [O ii] randomly fluctuated by their errors under the assumption of the normal distribution. Then, we derive the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distribution of the 1000 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) values as the ±1σ\pm 1\sigma confidence interval of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). We note that we cannot measure 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) of 7 galaxies in our sample due to the lack of Hβ\beta. The derived TeT_{\rm e}, E(BV)E(B-V), and 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) values are summarized in Table 3. We have confirmed that our derived 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) values of GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019 are consistent with those measured by Jones et al. (2023) and Larson et al. (2023) based on the stellar radiation within a 1σ1\sigma error level, respectively.

We also estimate 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) of GN-z11 in a similar way to our sample galaxies. However, we use [O iii]λ\lambda4363 instead of [O iii]λ\lambda5007, which is outside the NIRSpec wavelength coverage in the case of GN-z11. We assume Te(Oiii)=15000±5000T_{\rm e}(\mathrm{O\,\textsc{iii}})=15000\pm 5000 K and ne=300n_{\rm e}=300 cm-3. We estimate E(BV)=0.00E(B-V)=0.00, log(U)=2.04\log(U)=-2.04, O+/H=+6.08×106{}^{+}=6.08\times 10^{-6}, and O2+/H=+9.39×105{}^{+}=9.39\times 10^{-5} from the observed Hδ\delta/Hγ\gamma, [O iii]λ4363\lambda 4363/[O ii], [O ii]/Hδ\delta, and [O iii]λ4363\lambda 4363/Hδ\delta ratios, respectively. The Hδ\delta/Hγ\gamma ratio is taken from Maiolino et al. (2023), while the other line ratios are taken from Bunker et al. (2023). We obtain 12+log(O/H)=8.000.46+0.7612+\log(\rm O/H)=8.00^{+0.76}_{-0.46}, which is consistent with that derived by Cameron et al. (2023) and Senchyna et al. (2023) based on the stellar radiation within a 1σ1\sigma error level.

3.4 Abundance Ratio Based on Stellar Radiation

Table 1: Atomic data
Ion Emission process Transition probability Collision Strength
(1) (2) (3) (4)
H0 Re Storey & Hummer (1995)
C2+ CE Wiese et al. (1996) Berrington et al. (1985)
N2+ CE Galavis et al. (1998) Blum & Pradhan (1992)
O+ CE Froese Fischer & Tachiev (2004) Kisielius et al. (2009)
O2+ CE Froese Fischer & Tachiev (2004) Storey et al. (2014)
Ne2+ CE Froese Fischer & Tachiev (2004) McLaughlin & Bell (2000)
Ar2+ CE Munoz Burgos et al. (2009) Munoz Burgos et al. (2009)
S+ CE Rynkun et al. (2019) Tayal & Zatsarinny (2010)
Table 2: Abundance Ratio of GLASS_150008, CEERS_01019, and GN-z11
ID 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) log(N/O)\log(\rm N/O) log(C/O)\log(\rm C/O) log(C/N)\log(\rm C/N) log(Ne/O)\log(\rm Ne/O) Rad.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
GLASS_150008 7.650.08+0.147.65^{+0.14}_{-0.08} 0.400.07+0.05-0.40^{+0.05}_{-0.07} 1.080.14+0.06-1.08^{+0.06}_{-0.14} 0.680.15+0.09-0.68^{+0.09}_{-0.15} \cdots stellar
CEERS_01019 7.940.31+0.467.94^{+0.46}_{-0.31} >0.28>0.28 <1.04<-1.04 <1.32<-1.32 0.770.10+0.11-0.77^{+0.11}_{-0.10} stellar
8.23–8.50 >0.01>-0.01 <0.36<-0.36 <0.35<-0.35 (0.72)(-0.72)(0.48)(-0.48) AGN
GN-z11 8.000.46+0.768.00^{+0.76}_{-0.46} >0.36>-0.36 >1.01>-1.01 0.650.12+0.06-0.65^{+0.06}_{-0.12} >0.88>-0.88 stellar
8.58–9.23 >0.09>-0.09 >0.78>-0.78 (0.80)(-0.80)(0.54)(-0.54) >1.85>-1.85 AGN

We derive Ne/O, C/O, and N/O ratios from ionic abundance ratios with similar ionization energies of Ne2+/O2+, C2+/O2+, and N2+/O2+ to minimize systematics of ionization correction factors (ICFs). We calculate Ne2+/O2+ ratios from [Ne iii]/[O iii] ratios. For GLASS_150008 and GN-z11 with the O iii] detection, we use C iii]/O iii] and N iii]/O iii] ratios to obtain C2+/O2+ and N2+/O2+ ratios with less systematics. For the other galaxies in our sample, we calculate C2+/O2+ and N2+/O2+ ratios from [O iii] lines. We calculate these ionic abundance ratios using PyNeb with the same transition probabilities and collision strengths listed in Table 1.

To derive chemical abundance ratios (Ne/O, C/O, and N/O) from the ionic abundance ratios (Ne2+/O2+, C2+/O2+, and N2+/O2+), we extract ICFs from the young stellar model (Section 3.2). We have checked that our ICFs provide Ne/O and C/O ratios consistent with those based on Izotov et al. (2006) and Berg et al. (2019)’s ICFs, respectively. We have also confirmed that ICF(Ne2+/O2+), ICF(C2+/O2+), and ICF(N2+/O2+) of all our sample galaxies are 1\sim 1. In addition, the extremely young massive stellar model provides Ne/O, C/O, and N/O values similar to those of the young stellar model. We derive the errors of the Ne/O, C/O, and N/O ratios by Monte Carlo simulations in the same way as for 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) (Section 3.3). For our sample galaxies without the detections of [Ne iii], C iii], or N iii], we use 3σ3\sigma upper limits of these lines to obtain upper limits of Ne/O, C/O, or N/O ratios. We list the derived abundance ratios in Table 3, while those of GLASS_150008, CEERS_01019, and GN-z11 are highlighted in Table 2. All the 3 galaxies have super-solar N/O values under the assumption of the stellar radiation.

3.5 Abundance Ratio Based on AGN Radiation

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (Left) N iv]/N iii] vs. [O iii]/[O ii] of CEERS_01019 (red square). (Right) [Ne iv]/[Ne iii] vs. He ii/Hδ\delta of GN-z11 (magenta square). Cloudy photoionization models of young massive stellar population and AGN are shown by the solid and dashed lines, respectively, color-coded by metallicity. The observed emission-line ratios are not reproduced by the stellar models but the AGN models.
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Comparison with the observed line ratios and the AGN photoionization models with different 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) (top), N/O (middle), C/O (bottom left), and C/N (bottom right). The observed emission-line ratios of CEERS_01019 and GN-z11 are shown by the red and magenta shaded regions, respectively. The black dashed lines in the top panels denote the emission-line ratios predicted by the AGN models with the UU values determined by [O iii]/[O ii] and N iv]/N iii] for CEERS_01019 and GN-z11, respectively. The gray shaded regions (in the top panels) represent uncertainties of the observed ionization parameters, while the gray shaded regions in the middle and bottom panels correspond to the uncertainties including both the UU and 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) uncertainties.
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Metallicity as a function of redshift. The metallicities of CEERS_01019 (red square) and GN-z11 (magenta square) are based on their O/H ratios. The black and blue symbols are FOREVER22 (Yajima et al., 2022a, b) simulated galaxies of First0 and First1, respectively, while the dots and the solid lines denote metallicities measured within the half-mass radii (rhalfr_{\rm half}) and the total gas of the galaxies, respectively.

3.5.1 AGN Possibility

For accuracy of the abundance ratio measurements, we discuss the AGN possiblity of GLASS_150008, CEERS_01019, and GN-z11. First, GLASS_150008 does not have very high ionization lines that require the presence of AGN. We have also checked that GLASS_150008 does not have a clear broad component in the Hβ\beta line profile. We thus conclude that GLASS_150008 does not have AGN signatures at least in the current data set.

Contrary to GLASS_150008, Larson et al. (2023) have reported that CEERS_01019 with the N iv] detection has an Hβ\beta broad component with the full-width half maximum of 1200\sim 1200 km s-1, which can be an evidence of AGN. Maiolino et al. (2023) have also reported that GN-z11 has a detection of [Ne iv]λλ\lambda\lambda2422,2424 lines that require high-energy photons beyond 63.5 eV, which can also suggest that GN-z11 is an AGN.

Here, we check if emission line ratios of CEERS_01019 and GN-z11 cannot be reproduced by the BPASS stellar photoionization models. The solid curves in Figure 3 represent predicted emission line ratios of the extremely young massive stellar model. The model contains very massive stars up to 300 MM_{\odot}, which are expected to produce harder radiation than normal stellar populations. However, we confirm that even the extremely young massive stellar model cannot reproduce the observed N iv]/N iii] and [O iii]/[O ii] relation of CEERS_01019 (red square) or the observed [Ne iv]λλ\lambda\lambda2422,2424/[Ne iii] and N iv]/N iii] relation of GN-z11 (magenta square; Maiolino et al. 2023). We can say that it is difficult to reproduce the observed emission lines of CEERS_01019 and GN-z11 with the BPASS models.

This does not necessarily mean that all stellar photoionization models fail to reproduce the observed emission lines of CEERS_01019 or GN-z11. For example, Marques-Chaves et al. (2023) claim that the observed high N iv]/N iii] ratio of CEERS_01019 can be explained by the 3MdB stellar photoionization model (Morisset et al., 2015). However, as shown by the color-coded dashed lines in Figure 3, we find that CEERS_01019 has the lower limit of N iv]/N iii] and the [O iii]/[O ii] ratio simultaneously reproduced by the default AGN model. We also find that both [Ne iv]/[Ne iii] and He ii/Hδ\delta ratios of GN-z11 measured by Maiolino et al. (2023) are reproduced by the default AGN model except for αOX=1.5\alpha_{\rm OX}=-1.5 (low-αOX\alpha_{\rm OX} AGN model, hereafter). These results indicate the presence of AGN models that consistently reproduce the observed high ionization lines.

3.5.2 Abundance Ratio Re-estimation of CEERS_01019

Then, we re-estimate 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) and N/O of CEERS_01019 by using these AGN models. The middle left panel of Figure 4 shows the observed [O iii]/Hβ\beta ratio of CEERS_01019 (red solid line; 1σ\sigma uncertainty is shown by the red shaded region) and those predicted by the default AGN models with the UU value derived from the observed [O iii]/[O ii] ratio (gray dashed line; 1σ\sigma uncertainty based on the observed [O iii]/[O ii] uncertainty is shown by the gray shaded region) as a function of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). Note that [O iii]/Hβ\beta values slightly decrease with increasing N/O. With the default AGN models with [N/O]=1]=1, we find that the observed and model-predicted [O iii]/Hβ\beta ratios agree with each other at 12+log(O/H)=8.2312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.23–8.50. We then derive the N/O ratio of CEERS_01019 by comparing the observed lower limit of N iv]/O iii] with those predicted by the default AGN models with the metallicity range of 12+log(O/H)=8.2312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.23–8.50, UU based on the observed [O iii]/[O ii] ratio, and different N/O ratios. We find that the observed lower limit of N iv]/O iii] favors the model with the super-solar value of [N/O]>0.85[\rm N/O]>0.85 (i.e., log(N/O)>0.01\log(\rm N/O)>-0.01).

We derive C/O and Ne/O ratios of CEERS_01019 from C iii]/[O iii] and [Ne iii]/[O iii] ratios in the same way as for the N/O ratio, using the default AGN models with 12+log(O/H)=8.2312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.23–8.50 and [N/O]=1]=1. We obtain [C/O]<0.13]<-0.13 and [Ne/O]=(0.09)]=(-0.09)–0.15, and our derived C/O and N/O ratios provide a low value of [C/N]<0.98]<-0.98 (i.e., log(C/N)<0.35\log(\rm C/N)<-0.35). Note that we can obtain a more strict upper limit of [C/N]<1.8]<-1.8 based on the C iii]/N iv] ratio. The observed ratios among N iii], N iv], and C iii] lines are simultaneously reproduced by the default AGN model with 12+log(O/H)=8.2312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.23–8.50, [N/O]>0.85[\rm N/O]>0.85, and [C/N]<1.8]<-1.8.

3.5.3 Abundance Ratio Re-estimation of GN-z11

We derive 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) and N/O of GN-z11 in the similar way to CEERS_01019, while we use the low-αOX\alpha_{\rm OX} AGN model, N iv]/N iii] (Maiolino et al., 2023) as an indicator of UU, the [O iii]λ\lambda4363/[O ii] (Bunker et al., 2023) for the metallicity measurement, and the lower limit of N iii]/O iii] (Maiolino et al., 2023; Bunker et al., 2023) for the N/O measurement. Using the Hδ\delta/Hγ\gamma ratio of Maiolino et al. (2023), we derive E(BV)=0.00E(B-V)=0.00 under the assumption of Te=15000T_{\rm e}=15000 K and Calzetti et al. (2000)’s dust attenuation curve. We obtain 12+log(O/H)=8.6312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.63–9.21, which is higher than those based on the stellar radiation and [O iii]λ\lambda4363 of 12+log(O/H)=7.0312+\log(\rm O/H)=7.03–8.60 (Cameron et al., 2023), 12+log(O/H)=7.840.05+0.0612+\log(\rm O/H)=7.84^{+0.06}_{-0.05} (Senchyna et al., 2023), and our derived value of 12+log(O/H)=8.000.46+0.7612+\log(\rm O/H)=8.00^{+0.76}_{-0.46}. This is because the AGN radiation can enhance [O iii]λ\lambda4363, which results in overestimation of TeT_{\rm e}.

We derive C/N, C/O, and Ne/O ratios of GN-z11 from C iii]/N iii] (Maiolino et al., 2023), C iii]/O iii] (Maiolino et al., 2023; Bunker et al., 2023), and [Ne iii]/O iii] (Maiolino et al., 2023; Bunker et al., 2023) ratios in the same way as for the N/O ratio, using the low-αOX\alpha_{\rm OX} AGN models with 12+log(O/H)=8.2312+\log(\rm O/H)=8.23–8.50 and [N/O]=1]=1. We obtain a low value of [C/N]=(1.43)]=(-1.43)–(1.17-1.17), [C/O]>0.53]>-0.53, and [Ne/O]>1.22]>-1.22 (i.e., log(C/N)=(0.80)\log(\rm C/N)=(-0.80)(0.54)(-0.54), log(C/O)>0.78\log(\rm C/O)>-0.78, and log(Ne/O)>1.85\log(\rm Ne/O)>-1.85). We have confirmed that the C/N value based on C iii]/N iii] is consistent with that based on C iii]/N iv] within the error level. We summarize the metallicities and the abundance ratios of GLASS_150008, CEERS_01019, and GN-z11 in Table 2.

Here, we check whether our derived metallicities of GN-z11 and CEERS_01019 are too high at z=10.6z=10.6 and 8.68, respectively. Figure 5 compares the metallicity of GN-z11 (magenta square) and CEERS_01019 (red square) based on the AGN radiation with those of First0 (black) and First1 (blue) galaxies of the cosmological hydrodynamics zoom-in simulation FOREVER22 (Yajima et al., 2022a, b). First0 and First1 galaxies have the same initial gas particle masses, dark matter particle masses, and gravitational softening lengths, but slightly different final halo masses of 3.5×10113.5\times 10^{11} and 3.2×1011M3.2\times 10^{11}\ M_{\odot}, respectively (Yajima et al., 2022a). Although the metallicities of the simulated galaxies calculated for the total gas (solid) are lower than that of GN-z11, we find that the simulated galaxies can instantaneously have super-solar metallicities within their half-mass radii (100\sim 100 pc at z=10.6z=10.6, where GN-z11 is located). This suggests that it is not very strange even for high-zz galaxies such as GN-z11 and CEERS_01019 to have high metallicities around the solar value.

4 Nitrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen Abundances

4.1 Result

Refer to caption
Figure 6: N/O (top left), C/O (top right), C/N (bottom left) as a function of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). N/O as a function of C/O (bottom right). The double red circle denotes the measurements of GLASS_150008 based on the stellar photoionization model. The measurements of CEERS_01019 (red square) and GN-z11 (magenta square) are based on the AGN photoionization models, while those based on the stellar photoionization models are shown by the semi-transparent red and magenta squares, respectively. The semi-transparent magenta dashed lines, magenta triangle, and red crosses are the abundance measurements of GN-z11 by Cameron et al. (2023), GN-z11 by Senchyna et al. (2023), and CEERS_01019 by Marques-Chaves et al. (2023), respectively, all of which are based on the stellar radiation. In the top right panel, C/O ratios of other galaxies in our sample are shown by the semi-transparent white circles. The double circles correspond to the measurements with TeT_{\rm e} determinations. Mrk996, a Wolf-Rayet galaxy, is represented by the black diamonds (Senchyna et al., 2023; Berg et al., 2016). Local galaxies (Berg et al., 2016, 2019; Izotov et al., 2006) and Galactic H ii regions (García-Rojas & Esteban, 2007) are shown by the gray dots, while the gray curves are the empirical relation of the Galactic stars (Nicholls et al., 2017). The purple circles are dwarf stars in a globular cluster (GC) NGC6752 (Carretta et al., 2005), while those O/H values are taken from Senchyna et al. (2023). The purple stars show abundance ratio distributions of dwarf stars in a metal-rich GC 47 Tuc (Briley et al., 2004; D’Orazi et al., 2010). The pink pluses are carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars (Norris et al., 2013) and nitrogen-enhanced metal-poor (NEMP) stars (Beveridge & Sneden, 1994). The cyan and brown shaded regions indicate yields of CCSN (Watanabe et al., 2023) and the equilibrium value of the CNO cycle (Maeder et al., 2015), respectively. The orange dashed line shows a chemical evolution model that reproduces emission-line ratios of quasars (Hamann & Ferland, 1993), while nitrogen enrichment in the model is mainly caused by asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars. The potential change of N/O and C/O by dust depletion (Ferland et al., 2013) is indicated by the length of the small black arrow at the bottom left corner of the bottom right panel.
Refer to caption
Figure 7: N/O as a function of C/O (bottom right). The symbols are the same as in Figure 6, while the blue dashed, green solid, and yellow dashed-dotted lines illustrate chemical evolution models of Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, supermassive stars (SMS), and tidal disruption events (TDE), respectively, where most of massive stars are assumed to undergo the direct collapse (Watanabe et al. 2023; Watanabe et al. in prep.).
Refer to caption
Figure 8: N/O as a function of absolute UV magnitude MUVM_{\mathrm{UV}} (left) and S/NS/N ratio of Hδ\delta (right). The symbols are basically the same as those in the top right panel of Figure 6, but our sample galaxies with S/NS/N(Hδ)<3\delta)<3 are shown by the gray arrows only in the right panel. The opaque white circle represents the N/O upper limit derived from the stacked spectrum of our sample galaxies. The black dashed line is the solar abundance.

The top left panel of Figure 6 shows N/O ratios as a function of metallicity. We find that GLASS_150008 and CEERS_01019 show [N/O]0.5]\gtrsim 0.5 as well as GN-z11. For CEERS_01019 and GN-z11, this conclusion does not change regardless of whether AGN or stellar radiation is assumed. CEERS_01019 and GLASS_150008 are the second and third examples of super-solar N/O galaxies at z>6z>6 after the report of GN-z11. Hereafter we refer to these 3 galaxies (CEERS_01019, GLASS_150008, and GN-z11) as JWST N-rich galaxies. The super-solar N/O values are significantly higher than those of typical local dwarf galaxies, Galactic H ii regions (gray dots), and typical Galactic stars (gray curve) at a given 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H), but comparable to that of a Wolf-Rayet galaxy, Mrk996.

Contrary to the high N/O ratios, the top right panel of Figure 6 illustrates that CEERS_01019 (together with many of our sample galaxies in the semi-transparent white circles) has a C/O ratio comparable to those of the typical local galaxies, local stars, and z3z\sim 3 dwarf star-forming galaxies (e.g., Llerena et al., 2022, 2023). GLASS_150008 shows a C/O ratio even lower than those of the typical local galaxies and stars but comparable to some of our sample galaxies.

This discrepancy between the high N/O and low C/O ratios is illustrated by the bottom left panel of Figure 6, which shows the C/N ratios as a function of metallicity. We find that all the JWST N-rich galaxies have [C/N] values less than 1\sim-1, which are significantly lower than those of the typical local galaxies and stars. This conclusion is also the case regardless of the assumed radiation.

Such low C/N ratios are expected to be observed in nitrogen-loud quasars (e.g., Batra & Baldwin, 2014), while those O/H ratios have not fully been investigated. Alternatively, we plot a chemical evolution model of Hamann & Ferland (1993) reproducing observed emission-line ratios of quasars. Nitrogen in the model is mainly enriched by AGB stars. Although the quasar model with AGB stars can produce low C/N ratios down to [C/N]1]\sim-1, it does not reproduce the (relatively-)low O/H ratios of the JWST N-rich galaxies simultaneously. This is because AGB stars require much delay time (1\gtrsim 1 Gyr) to decrease the C/N ratio to [C/N]1]\sim-1, which increases O/H ratios too much. This result also suggests that the JWST N-rich galaxies are not likely to be nitrogen-loud quasars whose nitrogen is enriched by AGB stars.

The bottom right panel of Figure 6 shows the relations between N/O and C/O. We confirm that the JWST N-rich galaxies have N/O ratios higher than those of the typical local galaxies and stars at a given C/O ratios, which indicate that only nitrogen is selectively enriched in the JWST N-rich galaxies with respect to the typical local galaxies and stars.

4.2 Local Object with Similar C, N, O Abundances

We find that Mrk996, a local metal-poor dwarf star-forming galaxy with a high value of log(N/O)0\log(\rm N/O)\sim 0 (Senchyna et al., 2023), has a low C/N value similar to the JWST N-rich galaxies (bottom left panel of Figure 6). The bottom right panel of Figure 6 also shows that Mrk996 coincides with the JWST N-rich galaxies on the N/O vs. C/O plane. Mrk996 is known to host WR stars evidenced by the presence of the WR bumps (e.g., Telles et al., 2014). Similar to Mrk996, the JWST N-rich galaxies may also host WR stars.

We also identify some of carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars (Norris et al., 2013) and nitrogen-enhanced metal-poor (NEMP) stars (Beveridge & Sneden, 1994) in the Galactic halo with the C/N vs. O/H and N/O vs. C/O relations comparable to those of the JWST N-rich galaxies as shown by the pink crosses in Figure 6. It should be noted that some of such stars are giants undergoing the conversion of C to N in their hydrogen layers.

Moreover, the purple circles in the bottom panels of Figure 6 indicate dwarf stars in a globular cluster (GC) NGC6752, which have been reported to have high N/O ratios similar to GN-z11 (Senchyna et al., 2023). The purple stars with the error bars also show median and 16th-84th percentile values of the abundance ratios of dwarf stars in a GC 47 Tuc. Carbon and nitrogen abundances of the dwarf stars are drawn from Briley et al. (2004), while the oxygen abundances are taken from D’Orazi et al. (2010). The metallicity of GLASS_150008 is similar to that of the dwarf stars in NGC6752, while CEERS_01019 (GN-z11) has metallicity similar to (or close to) that of the dwarf stars in 47 Tuc. We find that the GC dwarf stars also have low C/N ratios and N/O vs. C/O relations similar to those of the JWST N-rich galaxies. As surface abundance of dwarf stars are likely unevovled, the gas composition at the time of GC formation may also have similar abundance ratios to the JWST N-rich galaxies. This implies that the JWST N-rich galaxies may be progenitors of GCs.

4.3 Origin of Low C/N

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Ne/O ratio as a function of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) (left) and redshift (right). Our sample galaxies, except for CEERS_01019 and GLASS_150008, are the semi-transparent red circles. The double circles indicate the measurements with TeT_{\rm e} determinations. CEERS_01019 is shown by the opaque (AGN assumed) and semi-transparent (stellar assumed) red squares, while GLASS_150008 does not have the Ne/O measurement (Table 2). The gray dots in the left panel correspond to the local dwarf galaxies (Izotov et al., 2006; Kojima et al., 2021; Isobe et al., 2022), while the 16th and 84th percentiles of the Ne/O distribution of these local dwarf galaxies are shown by the gray shaded region in the right panel. The blue curves represent chemical evolution models (Watanabe et al., 2023) with different metallicities. The cyan lines denote isochrones of the chemical evolution models at the model ages of 106.710^{6.7}, 106.810^{6.8}, 106.910^{6.9}, and 107.010^{7.0} year that correspond to the lifetime of progenitor stars with 40, 30, 25, and 20 MM_{\odot}, respectively (Portinari et al., 1998).

In the bottom panels of Figure 6, we plot the abundance ratios processed by the CNO cycle at the equilibrium state (Maeder et al., 2015) by the brown shaded regions, while core-collapse supernova yields (Watanabe et al., 2023) are shown by the cyan shaded regions. In contrast to the typical local galaxies and stars, we find that the JWST N-rich galaxies have the abundance ratios between those of CCSNe and those of the equilibrium state of the CNO cycle. This suggests that not only CCSNe but also the CNO cycle significantly contribute to the metal enrichment of the JWST N-rich galaxies. Thus, we need scenarios that can enrich gaseous materials originating from the CNO cycle while suppressing oxygen supply by CCSNe in the relatively low-metallicity environments.

In fact, these requirements are met by the scenarios presented to explain nitrogen enrichment of GN-z11 such as Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars (Senchyna et al., 2023; Watanabe et al., 2023), supermassive stars (SMS; Charbonnel et al. 2023; Nagele & Umeda 2023), and tidal disruption events (TDE; Cameron et al. 2023). In all the 3 scenarios, CNO-cycle material can be ejected from the outermost hydrogen-burning layer of stars via stellar winds (for the WR star and SMS scenarios) or gravitational interactions with black holes (for the TDE scenario). Low-metallicity massive stars can also undergo direct collapse (i.e., no ejecta) due to the low opacity of the hydrogen envelope, resulting in a heavier helium core during collapse (Heger et al., 2003). The blue dashed, green solid, and yellow dashed-dotted lines in Figure 7 represent chemical evolution models of WR stars, SMSs, and TDEs, respectively, all of which are constructed by Watanabe et al. (2023) and Watanabe et al. (in prep.). The WR star and SMS models include the yields of WR stars with 25–120 MM_{\odot} (Limongi & Chieffi, 2018) and SMSs with 105M10^{5}\ M_{\odot} (Nagele & Umeda, 2023), respectively. The TDE model includes TDE yields calculated by Watanabe et al. (in prep.) with the nucleosynthesis code of Tominaga et al. (2007), assuming the destruction of stars with 9–40 MM_{\odot}. Note that 100%, 99.99%, and 90% of massive stars are assumed to undergo direct collapse (i.e., no ejecta) in the WR star, SMS, and TDE models, respectively, and that the remaining massive stars explode as CCSNe whose yields are taken from Nomoto et al. (2013). We confirm that all the 3 models can reproduce the observed N/O and C/O ratios of the JWST N-rich galaxies. We have also checked that the N/O and C/O ratios of the wind yields from the 103M10^{3}\ M_{\odot} SMS (Nagele & Umeda, 2023) are also comparable to those of the JWST N-rich galaxies. These findings suggest the presence of high-zz galaxies affected by WR stars, SMSs, and/or TDEs with frequent direct collapses.

It should be noted that it is unclear that all high-zz galaxies follow these scenarios with the significant amount of CNO-cycle materials because N/O ratios of the other high-zz galaxies are not constrained well. Figure 8 shows N/O ratios of our sample galaxies as a function of MUVM_{\mathrm{UV}} and S/NS/N ratio of Hδ\delta. The MUVM_{\mathrm{UV}} values of our sample galaxies and GN-z11 are taken from Nakajima et al. (2023) and Harikane et al. (2023a), respectively. We find that all of our sample galaxies (semi-transparent white circle) but the JWST N-rich galaxies have poor upper limits above the solar abundance. We also note that all the 3 JWST N-rich galaxies have large values of MUVM_{\mathrm{UV}} and/or S/NS/N ratio of Hδ\delta relative to the other galaxies in our sample. These results suggest that we cannot tell whether the other galaxies in our sample have high N/O ratios consistent with the scenarios with dominant CNO-cycle materials, or whether the galaxies have low N/O ratios comparable to those of the CCSN yields, but are not constrained simply because the galaxies are not bright enough and/or the exposure time is not long enough.

We also investigate the typical N/O ratio of high-zz galaxies by stacking the JWST spectra. We select JWST galaxy spectra with R1000R\sim 1000 and at z=5.0z=5.0–9.4 to cover O iii] and [O iii]. The total number of such spectra reaches 30\sim 30. We perform median stacking on the 30\sim 30 spectra and 100 times bootstrap resampling to estimate the error of the stacked spectrum. We simply fit the Gaussian function to each emission line in the stacked spectrum. We find that neither N iii] nor O iii] is detected in the stacked spectrum. We then estimate an upper limit of the N/O ratio from N iii]/[O iii]. The (opaque) white circle in Figure 8 shows the N/O upper limit, together with the median MUVM_{\mathrm{UV}} value of the used galaxies and the S/NS/N ratio of Hδ\delta. We find that the N/O upper limit of the stacked spectrum is still higher than the solar abundance value, which means that we cannot conclude whether even the typical N/O ratio of high-zz galaxies exceeds the solar abundance.

5 Neon Abundance

5.1 Result

The left panel of Figure 9 shows Ne/O ratios of our sample galaxies (semi-transparent red circle) as a function of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). Although the majority of our sample galaxies have Ne/O ratios comparable to those of local dwarf galaxies (gray dot; Izotov et al. 2006; Kojima et al. 2021; Isobe et al. 2022), 4 of our sample galaxies (GLASS_100003, CEERS_00698, CEERS_01143, and CEERS_01149) have log(Ne/O)\log(\rm Ne/O) values of <1.0<-1.0, which are significantly lower than those of the local dwarf galaxies and the other our sample galaxies. The right panel of Figure 9 illustrates the Ne/O ratios as a function of redshift. Interestingly, all the 4 galaxies with the low Ne/O ratios are located at z>6z>6.

5.2 Origin of Low Ne/O

Here, we explore the origins of the low Ne/O. First, the CNO cycle cannot explain the low Ne/O ratios because the CNO cycle reduces the oxygen abundance and maintains the neon abundance. The 4 galaxies with the low Ne/O ratios have only upper limits of N/O, which means that there is also a possibility that these 4 galaxies have low N/O ratios comparable to those of the CCSN yields (see also the last paragraph of Section 4.3). Since CCSNe can produce large amounts of neon and oxygen, we consider below the contribution of CCSNe to the low Ne/O ratios.

We compare these data points with (Watanabe et al., 2023)’s chemical evolution models accumulating the CCSN yields calculated by the nucleosynthesis code of Tominaga et al. (2007) under the assumption of Kroupa (2001) IMF. We assume the metallicity evolution of the Milky Way (Suzuki & Maeda, 2018), and convert the maximum stellar ages of the models (Agemod) to 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). The blue curves in Figure 9 correspond to the chemical evolution models that accumulate CCSN ejecta with fixed metallicities of Z=0Z=0, 0.001, and 0.004. We also illustrate isochrones of the models at log(Agemod/yr)=6.7\log(\rm Age_{\rm mod}/yr)=6.7, 6.8, 6.9, and 7.0, which correspond to lifetimes of stars with 40, 30, 25, and 20 MM_{\odot}, respectively (Portinari et al., 1998). As shown in the top left panel of Figure 9, the models predict an increase in Ne/O with Agemod. This increase can originate from the prediction that CCSNe with more massive progenitors have higher temperatures in the carbon-burning layer (e.g., Woosley & Janka, 2005), which reduces neon abundance.

As shown in the top left panel of Figure 9, we find that the models with Mprog30MM_{\rm prog}\gtrsim 30\ M_{\odot} reproduce the low Ne/O ratios of the 4 galaxies. This finding agrees with the fact that the 4 galaxies are located at higher redshifts beyond 6, because galaxies at higher redshifts are expected to be younger and/or have top-heavy IMFs due to the metal-poorer environment.

6 Summary

We present N/O, C/O, C/N, and Ne/O ratios of 70 star-forming galaxies at z4z\sim 4–10, observed by the JWST/NIRSpec ERO, GLASS, and CEERS programs. We derive these abundance ratios from emission-line ratios of similar ionization energies, accounting for both stellar and AGN radiation, particularly for CEERS_01019 and GN-z11, which exhibit AGN signatures of high-ionization lines. Our findings are summarized below:

  • Among the 70 galaxies, we have pinpointed 2 galaxies with unique characteristics: CEERS_01019 at z=8.68z=8.68 and GLASS_150008 at z=6.23z=6.23. We find the low C/N and high N/O ratios these galaxies, which are also found in GN-z11, largely biased towards the C/N and N/O ratios at the equilibrium of the CNO cycle. This suggests that these 3 galaxies contain the significant amount of metals processed by the CNO cycle. This conclusion does not change regardless of whether stellar or AGN radiation is assumed.

  • The C/O and N/O ratios of these 3 galaxies are reproduced by chemical evolution models with the significant amount of CNO-cycle materials involving Wolf-Rayet stars, supermassive stars, and tidal disruption events. Interestingly, these scenarios would require frequent direct collapses.

  • On the C/N vs. O/H plane, these 3 galaxies do not align with Galactic H ii regions, typical Galactic stars, typical star-forming galaxies, or nitrogen-loud quasars whose nitrogen is assumed to originate from AGB stars. They do, however, coincide with GC dwarf stars. We may see the site of GC formation in these 3 galaxies.

  • The other galaxies in the ERO, GLASS, and CEERS programs have poor upper limits of N/O above the solar abundance. At this moment, we cannot tell whether these galaxies have super-solar N/O ratios.

  • We identify 4 galaxies with very low Ne/O, with log(Ne/O)<1.0\log(\rm Ne/O)<-1.0. This low ratio indicates the abundance of massive (30M\gtrsim 30\ M_{\odot}) stars.

We thank T. Nagao, A.K. Inoue, S. Aoyama, H. Algera, T. Jones, M. Llerena, D. Schaerer, J. Scholtz, and A.P. Vijayan for having useful discussions. We are grateful to staff of the James Webb Space Telescope Help Desk for letting us know useful information. This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope. The data were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-03127 for JWST. These observations are associated with programs 1125, 2736, 1324, 1345, and 2561. The authors acknowledge the ERO, GLASS, CEERS, and UNCOVER teams led by Klaus M. Pontoppidan, Tommaso Treu, Steven L. Finkelstein, and Ivo Labbe, respectively, for developing their observing programs with a zero-exclusive-access period. This work is based on observations taken by the CANDELS Multi-Cycle Treasury Program with the NASA/ESA HST, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. This work was supported by the joint research program of the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), University of Tokyo. This publication is based upon work supported by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. Y.I., M.O., K.N., and Y.H. are supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Nos. 21J20785, 20H00180/21H04467, 20K22373, and 21K13953, respectively. H.Y. is supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI (21H04489) and JST FOREST Program (JP-MJFR202Z). This research was supported by a grant from the Hayakawa Satio Fund awarded by the Astronomical Society of Japan.

\restartappendixnumbering

Appendix A Table of Metallicity and Abundance Ratios Based on the Stellar Radiation

\startlongtable
Table 3: Metallicity and Abundance Ratios of z4z\sim 4–9 Galaxies Based on the Stellar Radiation
ID Redshift TeT_{\rm e} E(BV)E(B-V) 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) log(Ne/O)\log(\rm Ne/O) log(C/O)\log(\rm C/O) log(N/O)\log(\rm N/O) log(Ar/O)\log(\rm Ar/O) log(S/O)\log(\rm S/O)
10410^{4} K mag
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
ERO_04590 8.4956 2.08±0.26a2.08\pm 0.26^{\rm a} 0.12 7.190.10+0.13g7.19^{+0.13\,{\rm g}}_{-0.10} <0.22<-0.22 0.530.15+0.17-0.53^{+0.17}_{-0.15} \cdots \cdots \cdots
ERO_05144 6.3784 1.64±0.16a1.64\pm 0.16^{\rm a} 0.00 7.790.10+0.11f7.79^{+0.11\,{\rm f}}_{-0.10} 0.740.06+0.05-0.74^{+0.05}_{-0.06} \cdots \cdots \cdots <0.87<-0.87
ERO_06355 7.6651 1.13±0.08a1.13\pm 0.08^{\rm a} 0.13 8.310.09+0.10f8.31^{+0.10\,{\rm f}}_{-0.09} 0.740.02+0.02-0.74^{+0.02}_{-0.02} \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots
ERO_08140 5.2751 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.05 7.770.31+0.45f7.77^{+0.45\,{\rm f}}_{-0.31} <0.90<-0.90 \cdots \cdots <1.75<-1.75 1.640.10+0.13-1.64^{+0.13}_{-0.10}
ERO_10612 7.6601 2.04±0.16a2.04\pm 0.16^{\rm a} 0.00 7.620.06+0.08f7.62^{+0.08\,{\rm f}}_{-0.06} 0.740.02+0.02-0.74^{+0.02}_{-0.02} \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots
GLASS_10000 7.8809 1.830.32+0.32b1.83^{+0.32\,{\rm b}}_{-0.32} 0.00 7.630.13+0.18g7.63^{+0.18\,{\rm g}}_{-0.13} 0.710.06+0.04-0.71^{+0.04}_{-0.06} \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots
GLASS_100001 7.8737 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.900.30+0.52f7.90^{+0.52\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} <0.83<-0.83 \cdots <0.46<0.46 \cdots \cdots
GLASS_100003 7.8773 1.98±0.37a1.98\pm 0.37^{\rm a} 0.00 7.670.15+0.20f7.67^{+0.20\,{\rm f}}_{-0.15} 1.050.10+0.09-1.05^{+0.09}_{-0.10} \cdots <0.30<-0.30 \cdots \cdots
GLASS_10021 7.2863 1.66±0.17a1.66\pm 0.17^{\rm a} 0.00 7.870.10+0.12f7.87^{+0.12\,{\rm f}}_{-0.10} 0.870.03+0.04-0.87^{+0.04}_{-0.03} \cdots <0.40<-0.40 \cdots \cdots
GLASS_110000 5.7631 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.13 7.960.29+0.50f7.96^{+0.50\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} 0.560.07+0.11-0.56^{+0.11}_{-0.07} <0.66<-0.66 <0.25<0.25 <1.92<-1.92 <1.57<-1.57
GLASS_150008 6.2291 1.930.12+0.12c1.93^{+0.12\,{\rm c}}_{-0.12} 0.07e 7.650.08+0.14h7.65^{+0.14\,{\rm h}}_{-0.08} \cdots 1.080.14+0.06i-1.08^{+0.06\,{\rm i}}_{-0.14} 0.400.07+0.05j-0.40^{+0.05\,{\rm j}}_{-0.07} \cdots \cdots
GLASS_150029 4.5837 1.76±0.14a1.76\pm 0.14^{\rm a} 0.16 7.730.08+0.09f7.73^{+0.09\,{\rm f}}_{-0.08} \cdots 0.840.09+0.10-0.84^{+0.10}_{-0.09} \cdots <2.63<-2.63 1.690.11+0.09-1.69^{+0.09}_{-0.11}
GLASS_160122 5.3312 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.920.28+0.54f7.92^{+0.54\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 0.620.06+0.10-0.62^{+0.10}_{-0.06} 0.720.31+0.63-0.72^{+0.63}_{-0.31} <0.03<-0.03 <1.96<-1.96 <1.26<-1.26
GLASS_160133 4.0151 1.48±0.07a1.48\pm 0.07^{\rm a} 0.13 7.950.05+0.05f7.95^{+0.05\,{\rm f}}_{-0.05} 0.780.02+0.02-0.78^{+0.02}_{-0.02} \cdots \cdots \cdots <2.09<-2.09
GLASS_40066 4.0197 1.660.14+0.14b1.66^{+0.14\,{\rm b}}_{-0.14} 0.23 7.840.10+0.17h7.84^{+0.17\,{\rm h}}_{-0.10} 0.690.15+0.02-0.69^{+0.02}_{-0.15} \cdots \cdots <2.76<-2.76 1.940.60+0.05-1.94^{+0.05}_{-0.60}
GLASS_50002 5.1333 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.52 8.320.29+0.51f8.32^{+0.51\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} <0.37<-0.37 \cdots \cdots <1.95<-1.95 <1.78<-1.78
GLASS_50038 5.7720 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.940.29+0.48f7.94^{+0.48\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} 0.870.13+0.13-0.87^{+0.13}_{-0.13} <1.00<-1.00 <0.15<-0.15 \cdots \cdots
GLASS_80029 3.9510 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.09 7.910.33+0.54h7.91^{+0.54\,{\rm h}}_{-0.33} 0.720.14+0.08-0.72^{+0.08}_{-0.14} \cdots \cdots 2.190.38+0.12-2.19^{+0.12}_{-0.38} 1.620.62+0.08-1.62^{+0.08}_{-0.62}
GLASS_80070 4.7969 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.11 7.790.29+0.55f7.79^{+0.55\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} 0.730.06+0.11-0.73^{+0.11}_{-0.06} 0.710.32+0.65-0.71^{+0.65}_{-0.32} <0.18<0.18 <2.26<-2.26 <1.80<-1.80
CEERS_00323 5.6657 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07 7.610.30+0.46g7.61^{+0.46\,{\rm g}}_{-0.30} 0.630.10+0.09-0.63^{+0.09}_{-0.10} <0.42<-0.42 <0.42<0.42 <1.28<-1.28 <0.55<-0.55
CEERS_00355 6.0998 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.01 7.880.27+0.59f7.88^{+0.59\,{\rm f}}_{-0.27} <0.94<-0.94 <0.72<-0.72 <0.22<0.22 <1.60<-1.60 <1.29<-1.29
CEERS_00397 6.0005 1.520.17+0.16b1.52^{+0.16\,{\rm b}}_{-0.17} 0.10 7.990.10+0.12f7.99^{+0.12\,{\rm f}}_{-0.10} 0.760.04+0.03-0.76^{+0.03}_{-0.04} 0.650.12+0.14-0.65^{+0.14}_{-0.12} <0.20<-0.20 <2.18<-2.18 <1.80<-1.80
CEERS_00403 5.7609 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.53 8.120.28+0.46f8.12^{+0.46\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} <0.62<-0.62 <0.40<0.40 <1.46<1.46 <2.03<-2.03 1.760.14+0.14-1.76^{+0.14}_{-0.14}
CEERS_00407 7.0291 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.830.30+0.52g7.83^{+0.52\,{\rm g}}_{-0.30} <0.42<-0.42 <0.27<-0.27 <0.58<0.58 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_00515 5.6644 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.27 7.680.30+0.47g7.68^{+0.47\,{\rm g}}_{-0.30} <0.35<-0.35 <0.25<0.25 <1.26<1.26 <1.21<-1.21 <0.72<-0.72
CEERS_00603 6.0568 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.04 7.920.28+0.49f7.92^{+0.49\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 0.800.12+0.13-0.80^{+0.13}_{-0.12} <0.65<-0.65 <0.18<0.18 <1.50<-1.50 <1.09<-1.09
CEERS_00618 6.0499 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.550.30+0.51g7.55^{+0.51\,{\rm g}}_{-0.30} <0.31<-0.31 <0.14<-0.14 <0.67<0.67 <0.86<-0.86 <0.39<-0.39
CEERS_00670 5.8045 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.34 7.870.29+0.55g7.87^{+0.55\,{\rm g}}_{-0.29} <0.39<-0.39 <0.29<0.29 <1.31<1.31 <1.29<-1.29 \cdots
CEERS_00689 7.5458 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07e 7.950.30+0.47f7.95^{+0.47\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} <0.80<-0.80 <0.18<-0.18 <0.32<0.32 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_00698 7.4708 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.970.30+0.50f7.97^{+0.50\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} 1.010.09+0.11-1.01^{+0.11}_{-0.09} <0.91<-0.91 <0.16<-0.16 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_00707 4.8964 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.24 8.030.34+0.56h8.03^{+0.56\,{\rm h}}_{-0.34} 0.760.12+0.10-0.76^{+0.10}_{-0.12} <0.82<-0.82 <0.25<0.25 <2.42<-2.42 2.000.59+0.09-2.00^{+0.09}_{-0.59}
CEERS_00717 6.9315 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.21 7.950.28+0.59f7.95^{+0.59\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 0.770.12+0.15-0.77^{+0.15}_{-0.12} <0.31<-0.31 <0.60<0.60 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_00792 6.2572 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 8.100.29+0.58f8.10^{+0.58\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} <0.87<-0.87 <0.67<-0.67 <0.16<0.16 <1.54<-1.54 <1.18<-1.18
CEERS_01019 8.6791 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.940.31+0.46f7.94^{+0.46\,{\rm f}}_{-0.31} 0.770.10+0.11-0.77^{+0.11}_{-0.10} <1.04<-1.04 >0.28k>0.28^{\rm k} \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01023 7.7764 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07e 7.670.27+0.55g7.67^{+0.55\,{\rm g}}_{-0.27} <0.41<-0.41 \cdots <0.81<0.81 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01025 8.7140 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07e 7.990.28+0.53f7.99^{+0.53\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 0.790.14+0.14-0.79^{+0.14}_{-0.14} \cdots <0.63<0.63 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01027 7.8197 1.790.27+0.28b1.79^{+0.28\,{\rm b}}_{-0.27} 0.25 7.670.12+0.16f7.67^{+0.16\,{\rm f}}_{-0.12} 0.570.04+0.03-0.57^{+0.03}_{-0.04} <0.60<-0.60 <0.12<0.12 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01029 8.6100 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07e 7.920.29+0.54f7.92^{+0.54\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} <0.64<-0.64 <0.16<-0.16 <0.71<0.71 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01038 7.1945 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07e 7.640.28+0.48g7.64^{+0.48\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} <0.40<-0.40 <0.00<0.00 <0.80<0.80 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01115 6.3002 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.06 7.700.28+0.57g7.70^{+0.57\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} <0.66<-0.66 <0.47<-0.47 <0.46<0.46 \cdots <0.34<-0.34
CEERS_01143 6.9266 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.990.28+0.49f7.99^{+0.49\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 1.020.09+0.10-1.02^{+0.10}_{-0.09} <1.05<-1.05 <0.19<-0.19 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01149 8.1750 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.02 7.870.29+0.51g7.87^{+0.51\,{\rm g}}_{-0.29} 1.060.12+0.12-1.06^{+0.12}_{-0.12} 0.610.36+0.60-0.61^{+0.60}_{-0.36} <0.14<0.14 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01160 6.5667 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.970.28+0.47f7.97^{+0.47\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} <0.62<-0.62 <0.62<-0.62 <0.25<0.25 \cdots \cdots
CEERS_01173 4.9957 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.31 8.120.27+0.53f8.12^{+0.53\,{\rm f}}_{-0.27} 0.750.09+0.14-0.75^{+0.14}_{-0.09} <0.27<-0.27 <0.89<0.89 <2.15<-2.15 1.830.11+0.12-1.83^{+0.12}_{-0.11}
CEERS_01236 4.4842 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.830.27+0.56f7.83^{+0.56\,{\rm f}}_{-0.27} <0.40<-0.40 <0.09<-0.09 \cdots <1.43<-1.43 <1.33<-1.33
CEERS_01289 4.8798 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07 8.020.28+0.52f8.02^{+0.52\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} <0.77<-0.77 <0.56<-0.56 <0.43<0.43 <1.81<-1.81 <1.33<-1.33
CEERS_01294 4.9987 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.15 8.120.30+0.46f8.12^{+0.46\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} 0.820.12+0.13-0.82^{+0.13}_{-0.12} <0.45<-0.45 <0.56<0.56 <1.84<-1.84 <1.50<-1.50
CEERS_01324 5.0074 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.680.33+0.54g7.68^{+0.54\,{\rm g}}_{-0.33} <0.29<-0.29 <0.19<-0.19 <0.79<0.79 <1.10<-1.10 <0.69<-0.69
CEERS_01358 5.5038 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.38 8.020.28+0.59g8.02^{+0.59\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} 0.410.09+0.11-0.41^{+0.11}_{-0.09} <0.31<0.31 <1.25<1.25 <1.43<-1.43 <0.47<-0.47
CEERS_01365 4.3074 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.710.28+0.49g7.71^{+0.49\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} <0.49<-0.49 \cdots \cdots <1.26<-1.26 <0.76<-0.76
CEERS_01374 4.9999 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.13 8.060.27+0.50f8.06^{+0.50\,{\rm f}}_{-0.27} 0.860.05+0.10-0.86^{+0.10}_{-0.05} <1.17<-1.17 <0.20<-0.20 \cdots 1.840.06+0.08-1.84^{+0.08}_{-0.06}
CEERS_01401 5.3749 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07 7.970.29+0.53f7.97^{+0.53\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} 0.870.10+0.14-0.87^{+0.14}_{-0.10} <0.76<-0.76 <0.17<0.17 <1.86<-1.86 <1.73<-1.73
CEERS_01449 4.7519 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.20 7.920.28+0.52f7.92^{+0.52\,{\rm f}}_{-0.28} 0.700.06+0.12-0.70^{+0.12}_{-0.06} <0.91<-0.91 <0.11<0.11 2.250.25+0.11-2.25^{+0.11}_{-0.25} 1.780.06+0.07-1.78^{+0.07}_{-0.06}
CEERS_01465 5.2692 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.650.31+0.52f7.65^{+0.52\,{\rm f}}_{-0.31} 0.480.12+0.15-0.48^{+0.15}_{-0.12} <0.22<-0.22 <0.69<0.69 <1.32<-1.32 <1.21<-1.21
CEERS_01536 5.0337 2.25±0.43a2.25\pm 0.43^{\rm a} 0.08 7.620.12+0.22f7.62^{+0.22\,{\rm f}}_{-0.12} 0.840.07+0.07-0.84^{+0.07}_{-0.07} <1.16<-1.16 <0.33<-0.33 <1.75<-1.75 <1.29<-1.29
CEERS_01539 4.8841 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.27 7.900.29+0.50f7.90^{+0.50\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} 0.700.07+0.12-0.70^{+0.12}_{-0.07} <0.27<-0.27 <0.74<0.74 <2.18<-2.18 1.850.07+0.09-1.85^{+0.09}_{-0.07}
CEERS_01544 4.1901 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.05 7.760.30+0.49g7.76^{+0.49\,{\rm g}}_{-0.30} <0.31<-0.31 <0.01<-0.01 \cdots <0.41<-0.41 <0.76<-0.76
CEERS_01561 6.1967 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.650.28+0.52g7.65^{+0.52\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} <0.69<-0.69 <0.51<-0.51 <0.33<0.33 <1.09<-1.09 <0.33<-0.33
CEERS_01605 4.6309 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.07 7.860.30+0.48f7.86^{+0.48\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} <0.75<-0.75 \cdots <0.55<0.55 <1.79<-1.79 <1.71<-1.71
CEERS_01658 4.6038 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.24 7.980.30+0.51f7.98^{+0.51\,{\rm f}}_{-0.30} \cdots <0.42<-0.42 \cdots <2.03<-2.03 \cdots
CEERS_01677 5.8670 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.00 7.910.31+0.56f7.91^{+0.56\,{\rm f}}_{-0.31} 0.230.06+0.12-0.23^{+0.12}_{-0.06} <0.21<-0.21 <0.36<0.36 <1.42<-1.42 <1.33<-1.33
CEERS_02174 5.3030 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.21 8.080.29+0.53f8.08^{+0.53\,{\rm f}}_{-0.29} <0.39<-0.39 \cdots <0.95<0.95 <1.60<-1.60 <1.54<-1.54
CEERS_02782 5.2408 1.5±0.5d1.5\pm 0.5^{\rm d} 0.32 7.740.28+0.55g7.74^{+0.55\,{\rm g}}_{-0.28} 0.590.10+0.11-0.59^{+0.11}_{-0.10} <0.01<-0.01 <0.99<0.99 <1.49<-1.49 <0.69<-0.69

Note. — (1): Ion. (2): Emission process. Re: Recombination; CE: Collisional excitation. (3): Reference of the transition probability. (4): Reference of the collision strength. : Aggarwal & Keenan (1999) for O iii].

Note. — (1) Name. (2) 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H). (3)–(6) Abundance ratios. (7) Incident radiation assumed to derive the abundance ratios.

Note. — (1) ID. (2) Redshift. (3) Electron temperature. a: Based on [O iii]λ\lambda4363 derived by Nakajima et al. (2023); b: Based on [O iii]λ\lambda4363 but not reported by Nakajima et al. (2023); c: Based on O iii]λ\lambda1666; d: Assumption. (4) Color excess. e: Assumed to be the median E(BV)E(B-V) of the other our sample galaxies. (5) Metallicity. f: [O ii] S/N3S/N\geq 3; g: [O ii] S/N<3S/N<3; h: [O ii] out of wavelength coverage. We include uncertainties of the assumptions of TeT_{\rm e} and [O ii] into the errors of 12+log(O/H)12+\log(\rm O/H) and the abundance ratios by performing Monte Carlo simulations (Section 3.4). (6)–(10) Abundance ratios. i: Based on metallicity-insensitive C iii]/O iii]. The other C/O measurements are based on C iii]/[O iii]. j: Based on metallicity-insensitive N iii]/O iii]. k: Based on N iv]/[O iii] The other N/O measurements are based on N iii]/[O iii].

Appendix B Argon and Sulfur Abundances

We obtain Ar/O and S/O ratios in the same way as the Ne/O and N/O measurements. We derive ionic abundance ratios of Ar2+/H+ and S+/H+ from [Ar iii]λ\lambda7136 and [S ii]λλ\lambda\lambda6716,6731 lines respectively. We use TeT_{\rm e}(O ii) for S+/H+ and TeT_{\rm e}(S iii) for Ar2+/H+, where TeT_{\rm e}(S iii) is calculated from TeT_{\rm e}(O iii) and the empirical relation of Garnett (1992). Because the ionization energy of S+ ion is lower than that of H+, we derive ICF(S+) calculated until the photo-dissociation region (PDR). Figure 10 illustrates Ar/O and S/O ratios of our sample galaxies as a function of metallicity. In addition to the CCSN models (blue), we plot Watanabe et al. (2023)’s hypernova (HN) models (green). The observed Ar/O and S/O ratios can be explained by the combination of CCSN and HN yields (see Watanabe et al. 2023 for more details).

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Ar/O and S/O as a function of metallicity. The symbols are the same as those in Figure 9, while we add Watanabe et al. (2023)’s chemical evolution models of hypernovae with different metallicities (green) and isochrones (light green).

References

  • Aggarwal & Keenan (1999) Aggarwal, K. M., & Keenan, F. P. 1999, ApJS, 123, 311, doi: 10.1086/313232
  • Arellano-Córdova et al. (2022) Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ab2
  • Asplund et al. (2021) Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445
  • Astropy Collaboration et al. (2013) Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068
  • Astropy Collaboration et al. (2022) Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74
  • Batra & Baldwin (2014) Batra, N. D., & Baldwin, J. A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu007
  • Berg et al. (2019) Berg, D. A., Erb, D. K., Henry, R. B. C., Skillman, E. D., & McQuinn, K. B. W. 2019, ApJ, 874, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab020a
  • Berg et al. (2016) Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Henry, R. B. C., Erb, D. K., & Carigi, L. 2016, ApJ, 827, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/126
  • Berrington et al. (1985) Berrington, K. A., Burke, P. G., Dufton, P. L., & Kingston, A. E. 1985, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 33, 195, doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(85)90001-4
  • Beveridge & Sneden (1994) Beveridge, R. C., & Sneden, C. 1994, AJ, 108, 285, doi: 10.1086/117068
  • Bezanson et al. (2022) Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04026
  • Blum & Pradhan (1992) Blum, R. D., & Pradhan, A. K. 1992, ApJS, 80, 425, doi: 10.1086/191670
  • Briley et al. (2004) Briley, M. M., Harbeck, D., Smith, G. H., & Grebel, E. K. 2004, AJ, 127, 1588, doi: 10.1086/381912
  • Bunker et al. (2023) Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07256
  • Bushouse et al. (2022) Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7429939
  • Calzetti et al. (2000) Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692
  • Cameron et al. (2023) Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Rey, M. P., & Saxena, A. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1579
  • Carretta et al. (2005) Carretta, E., Gratton, R. G., Lucatello, S., Bragaglia, A., & Bonifacio, P. 2005, A&A, 433, 597, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041892
  • Charbonnel et al. (2023) Charbonnel, C., Schaerer, D., Prantzos, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346410
  • D’Orazi et al. (2010) D’Orazi, V., Lucatello, S., Gratton, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/1/L1
  • Elvis et al. (1994) Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093
  • Ferland et al. (2013) Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 49, 137. https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4485
  • Finkelstein et al. (2022) Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.05792. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05792
  • Francis (1993) Francis, P. J. 1993, ApJ, 407, 519, doi: 10.1086/172533
  • Froese Fischer & Tachiev (2004) Froese Fischer, C., & Tachiev, G. 2004, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 87, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001
  • Galavis et al. (1998) Galavis, M. E., Mendoza, C., & Zeippen, C. J. 1998, A&AS, 131, 499, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998435
  • García-Rojas & Esteban (2007) García-Rojas, J., & Esteban, C. 2007, ApJ, 670, 457, doi: 10.1086/521871
  • Garnett (1992) Garnett, D. R. 1992, AJ, 103, 1330, doi: 10.1086/116146
  • Hamann & Ferland (1993) Hamann, F., & Ferland, G. 1993, ApJ, 418, 11, doi: 10.1086/173366
  • Harikane et al. (2023a) Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.06658, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06658
  • Harikane et al. (2023b) Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9
  • Heger et al. (2003) Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341
  • Isobe et al. (2023) Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06811, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06811
  • Isobe et al. (2022) Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Suzuki, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3509
  • Izotov et al. (2006) Izotov, Y. I., Stasińska, G., Meynet, G., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763
  • Jones et al. (2023) Jones, T., Sanders, R., Chen, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.07126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.07126
  • Kisielius et al. (2009) Kisielius, R., Storey, P. J., Ferland, G. J., & Keenan, F. P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14989.x
  • Kojima et al. (2017) Kojima, T., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 44, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx017
  • Kojima et al. (2021) Kojima, T., Ouchi, M., Rauch, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3d
  • Kroupa (2001) Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x
  • Larson et al. (2023) Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08918, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08918
  • Limongi & Chieffi (2018) Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24
  • Llerena et al. (2022) Llerena, M., Amorín, R., Cullen, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141651
  • Llerena et al. (2023) Llerena, M., Amorín, R., Pentericci, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346232
  • Luridiana et al. (2015) Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152
  • Maeder et al. (2015) Maeder, A., Meynet, G., & Chiappini, C. 2015, A&A, 576, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424153
  • Maiolino et al. (2023) Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12492, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12492
  • Marques-Chaves et al. (2023) Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Kuruvanthodi, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.04234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.04234
  • McLaughlin & Bell (2000) McLaughlin, B. M., & Bell, K. L. 2000, JPhB, 33, 597, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/33/4/301
  • Morisset et al. (2015) Morisset, C., Delgado-Inglada, G., & Flores-Fajardo, N. 2015, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 51, 103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.5349
  • Munoz Burgos et al. (2009) Munoz Burgos, J. M., Loch, S. D., Ballance, C. P., & Boivin, R. F. 2009, A&A, 500, 1253, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911743
  • Nagele & Umeda (2023) Nagele, C., & Umeda, H. 2023, ApJ, 949, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd550
  • Nakajima et al. (2023) Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.12825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.12825
  • Nicholls et al. (2017) Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R. S., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., & Groves, B. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3235
  • Nomoto et al. (2013) Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956
  • Norris et al. (2013) Norris, J. E., Yong, D., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/28
  • Oesch et al. (2016) Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/129
  • Pilyugin et al. (2012) Pilyugin, L. S., Vílchez, J. M., Mattsson, L., & Thuan, T. X. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1624, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20420.x
  • Pontoppidan et al. (2022) Pontoppidan, K. M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8a4e
  • Portinari et al. (1998) Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 505. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9711337
  • Rynkun et al. (2019) Rynkun, P., Gaigalas, G., & Jönsson, P. 2019, A&A, 623, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834931
  • Salpeter (1955) Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971
  • Senchyna et al. (2023) Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., & Rudie, G. C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.04179, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.04179
  • Stanway & Eldridge (2018) Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353
  • Steidel et al. (2016) Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., Pettini, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 159, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/159
  • Storey & Hummer (1995) Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41
  • Storey et al. (2014) Storey, P. J., Sochi, T., & Badnell, N. R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu777
  • Suzuki & Maeda (2018) Suzuki, A., & Maeda, K. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty999
  • Tayal & Zatsarinny (2010) Tayal, S. S., & Zatsarinny, O. 2010, ApJS, 188, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32
  • Telles et al. (2014) Telles, E., Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Carrasco, E. R. 2014, A&A, 561, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219270
  • The Astropy Collaboration (2018) The Astropy Collaboration. 2018, astropy v3.1: a core python package for astronomy, 3.1, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4080996
  • Tominaga et al. (2007) Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063
  • Treu et al. (2022) Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158
  • Vincenzo et al. (2016) Vincenzo, F., Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Matteucci, F., & Ventura, P. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw532
  • Watanabe et al. (2023) Watanabe, K., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.02078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.02078
  • Watanabe et al. (in prep.) Watanabe et al., K. in prep.
  • Wiese et al. (1996) Wiese, W. L., Fuhr, J. R., & Deters, T. M. 1996, Atomic transition probabilities of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen : a critical data compilation
  • Woosley & Janka (2005) Woosley, S., & Janka, T. 2005, Nature Physics, 1, 147, doi: 10.1038/nphys172
  • Yajima et al. (2022a) Yajima, H., Abe, M., Fukushima, H., et al. 2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.12970, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.12970
  • Yajima et al. (2022b) Yajima, H., Abe, M., Khochfar, S., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 509, 4037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3092
  • Zamorani et al. (1981) Zamorani, G., Henry, J. P., Maccacaro, T., et al. 1981, ApJ, 245, 357, doi: 10.1086/158815