Paper detail

One cloud is not enough: extreme conditions bias chemical abundances in high-redshift galaxies

Since its launch, JWST has opened an unprecedented opportunity to characterise the ionised ISM of high-redshift galaxies using well-established rest-frame UV/optical diagnostics from the local Universe. At the same time, these observations challenge the validity of such classical methods when applied to the extreme environments typical at high redshift. We present an in-depth analysis of the ISM in three representative case studies at $z=2 - 6$ (MARTA 4327, the Sunburst Arc and RXCJ2248-ID) conducted within a multi-cloud photoionisation modelling framework (HOMERUN). We show that even a small fraction of unresolved high-density clumps can contribute more than half of the observed flux of auroral lines, while only negligibly to standard optical density tracers. As a result, $T_{\mathrm{e}}$-method metallicities can be underestimated by $\sim 0.15 - 0.3$ dex, as for MARTA 4327. By modelling rest-frame UV and optical data, we demonstrate that discrepancies between abundances obtained from diagnostics tracing different zones do not necessarily imply chemical inhomogeneities. In RXCJ2248-ID, the disagreement between UV and optical N/O may naturally arise from ionisation and density structure alone. In contrast, we find evidence for genuine chemical stratification in the Sunburst Arc, where a component enriched in nitrogen coexists with a chemically normal one. Finally, we argue that very-high-ionisation lines may be explained within a pure star-formation scenario invoking matter-bounded regions. However, in the case of RXCJ2248-ID, we cannot rule out a minor contribution from an AGN based solely on the observed fluxes. These results indicate that classical diagnostics can be significantly biased in high-redshift galaxies and that self-consistent, physically motivated tools are therefore essential to properly interpret the complex ISM conditions and chemical enrichment in the early Universe.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.