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

Characterizing Dust Extinction and Spatially Resolved Paschen-α\alpha Emission within 97 Galaxies at 1<z<1.61<z<1.6 with JWST NIRCam Slitless Spectroscopy

Zhaoran Liu Astronomical Institute, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, 6–3 Aoba, Sendai 980-8578, Japan Takahiro Morishita IPAC, California Institute of Technology, MC 314-6, 1200 E. California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Tadayuki Kodama Astronomical Institute, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, 6–3 Aoba, Sendai 980-8578, Japan
Abstract

We present results on the Paschen-α\alpha (Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) emitting galaxies observed as part of the JWST FRESCO survey in the GOODS-North and GOODS-South fields. Utilizing the JWST NIRCam wide field slitless spectroscopy (WFSS), we analyze emission line fluxes, star formation rates (SFRs), and spatially resolved flux distributions of 97 Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emitters at 1<z<1.61<z<1.6. To assess dust extinction within our sample, we combine Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} fluxes with archival Hα{\rm H\alpha} data taken with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) WFC3 G141 grism. Our analysis reveals a significant correlation between dust extinction and galaxy stellar mass, where more massive galaxies exhibit greater dust extinction. We employ two-dimensional Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W mapping to trace the distributions of star formation and stellar mass, respectively. Our observations indicate that lower mass galaxies are almost dust free in Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and exhibit smaller sizes both in star formation and underlying stellar continuum. In contrast, galaxies with a stellar mass greater than 109.5M10^{9.5}M_{\odot} display diverse dust extinction and star formation patterns. This variation suggests that the structures and properties of massive galaxies evolve through different phases, which involve, e.g., star formation in massive clumps, compaction, and inside-out quenching. This study demonstrates the capabilities of JWST WFSS in conducting systematic investigations of emission line galaxies and highlights the pivotal role of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} in advancing our understanding of dust extinction and obscured star formation in the early universe.

Galaxy evolution (594); Interstellar medium (847); Galaxy structure (622)
software: Astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, 2018), SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996), CIGALE (Boquien et al., 2019)

1 Introduction

Galaxies are vast, diverse systems evolving through complex processes over the cosmic time, with their formation and structural development significantly dependent on baryonic processes occurring within dark matter halos and interacting with molecular gas reservoirs. Understanding star formation, which is the fundamental process that shapes galaxies, is crucial for determining their structural build-up, thereby enhancing our comprehension of how galaxies are constructed and evolve.

Over the past decades, various tracers of star formation across a broad spectrum of wavelengths, from ultraviolet (UV) and optical to infrared (IR) and sub-millimeter, have been intensively studied. These multi-wavelength studies have provided invaluable insights into how galaxies form, evolve, and eventually quenched across various redshifts and environments. Previous studies have demonstrated that a large fraction of local galaxies formed most of their current stellar mass during the epoch between redshift z=1z=1 and z=3z=3 (e.g., Madau & Dickinson, 2014; Behroozi et al., 2019). However, a prominent question remains unanswered: how exactly do galaxies assemble their stellar mass via star formation? Spatially resolved emission line mapping inside galaxies has played a crucial role in addressing this question, offering deeper insights into the mechanisms behind stellar accumulation in galaxies.

Prior to the JWST era, cutting-edge instruments with sub-kiloparsec resolving power had made it possible to resolve the star formation processes within galaxies. HST grism enabled studies of Hα{\rm H\alpha} line maps, uncovering extended star-forming HII regions. Combined with stellar mass maps, these observations helped elucidate the processes of galaxy mass assembly (e.g., Nelson et al., 2012; Wuyts et al., 2013; Vulcani et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2016a; Matharu et al., 2021). FIR and (sub)millimeter facilities such as the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) expanded this view into longer wavelength, offering high-resolution insights into the dust continuum and molecular gas dynamics, revealing the compact continuum of dusty sub-mm galaxies (e.g., Simpson et al., 2015; Hodge et al., 2016; Barro et al., 2016; Tadaki et al., 2017; Elbaz et al., 2018; Calistro Rivera et al., 2018; Fujimoto et al., 2018; Tadaki et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2020; Ikeda et al., 2022; Gómez-Guijarro et al., 2022). When ionized gas, dust continuum, and molecular gas observations are combined, we see a detailed picture of galactic mass assembly as a blend of extended, young star-forming disk and a centrally concentrated, extremely dusty bulge. However, interpreting Hα{\rm H\alpha} data presents challenges due to non-uniform dust extinction across different parts of a galaxy, with ongoing investigations into how this spatial variation evolves with redshifts, stellar masses, and SFRs (e.g., Tadaki et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016b; Matharu et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). Furthermore, studies aimed at resolving gas and dust components also face limitations — they are often restricted to relatively bright sources or require significant allocation of facility’s resources. Moreover, applying these observations to understand star formation relies on assumptions about dust temperature and the relationships between gas mass and star formation, which can vary not only from one galaxy to another but also within individual galaxies (Shetty et al., 2013; Liang et al., 2019; Feldmann, 2020).

With the launch of the JWST (Gardner et al., 2006, 2023), many previous constraints have been overcome, enabling us to study star formation using a broader array of tracers and in greater detail thanks to its high-quality imaging from the optical to the MIR (0.6 – 28.3 μ\mum) and the spatial and spectral resolving power of its spectrograph. A significant advancement includes improved determination of dust extinction; the Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) facilitates the study of multiple Balmer and Paschen lines, allowing for more accurate dust extinction measurements in high-zz galaxies (e.g., Shapley et al., 2023; Reddy et al., 2023; Sandles et al., 2023; Bunker et al., 2023; Morishita et al., 2024a).

Spatially resolving dust extinction within galaxies has also been greatly enhanced by the Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS) and NIRCam Wide Field Slitless Spectrograph (WFSS). These advanced instruments can obtain spectra for all galaxies within their fields, enabling detailed observation of the nebular emission line distribution inside galaxies without pre-selection. The breakthrough extends not only to high-redshift observations but also to the study of longer-wavelength hydrogen recombination lines, which are less affected by extinction, such as the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line at 1.875 μ\mum. With the NIRCam WFSS F444W, we can resolve Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission lines up to z=1.7z=1.7 (Neufeld et al., 2024). As an independent star formation tracer, Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} stands out because it closely tracks the intrinsic SFRs compared to the Balmer lines, thus providing constraints on dust extinction models and offering a more robust tracer of star formation (Reddy et al., 2023).

In this work, we utilize the JWST NIRCam WFSS grism to study dust extinction and spatially resolved star formation in galaxies at 1.0<z<1.61.0<z<1.6. Our goal is to evaluate the degree of dust extinction in our galaxy sample, assess the effects of dust on the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission line, and employ Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} as a star formation tracer to study galaxy mass assembly. We detail our data reduction methods and sample selection in Sec. 2. Our techniques for analyzing stellar mass, dust extinction, and size measurements are detailed in Sec. 3. We present our results in Sec. 4 and compare them with the existing literature in Sec. 5. We summarize our key conclusions in Sec. 6.

In this paper, we adopt the AB magnitude system (Oke & Gunn, 1983; Fukugita et al., 1996), cosmological parameters of Ωm=0.3\Omega_{m}=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7, H0=70H_{0}=70 km sMpc11{}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}, and the Chabrier (2003) initial mass function (IMF).

2 DATA AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The observational dataset utilized in this work encompasses three primary components: (1) extensive optical imaging from HST and detailed broad- and medium-band imaging obtained with the JWST/NIRCam; (2) JWST/NIRCam WFSS F444W grism; and (3) HST/WFC3 G141 grism. We detail the photometric and spectroscopic data and our sample selection as follows.

2.1 NIRCam+HST Photometry and Photmetric Redshift

For source identification, we start with a catalog generated in Morishita et al. (2024b). The work retrieved the fully processed images and spectroscopic catalogs made available by the JADES team (Rieke et al. 2023). A photometric catalog was then constructed following the method described in Morishita & Stiavelli (2023), using borgpipe (Morishita, 2021). In our following analysis, we adopt the aperture flux from the catalog, which was corrected to represent the total fluxes of the galaxies. For further details regarding the catalog, the readers are referred to Morishita et al. (2024b).

2.2 NIRCam WFSS Reduction

In this analysis, we utilize publicly available NIRCam WFSS data from the First Reionization Epoch Spectroscopic Complete Survey (FRESCO; GO-1895; PI: P. Oesch; Oesch et al. 2023). FRESCO is a JWST cycle-1 program which features comprehensive deep NIRCam imaging and slitless spectroscopic observations using the F444W filter. The obtained spectra achieve a resolution of R \sim 1600 and covers a wavelength range from 3.8 to 5.0 μ\mum, which enables us to study multiple hydrogen recombination lines across a wide range of cosmic time with a spatially resolved view.

We follow the methodology outlined in Sun et al. (2023)111https://github.com/fengwusun/nircam_grism/ and reduce the WFSS data using a combination of the official JWST pipeline and several customized steps as detailed below. We retrieve the stage-1 products (rate.fits) from the MAST archive and assign the world coordinate system (WCS) for each frame. Our background subtraction process involves two steps: we first subtract a median background that is separately generated for each module and pupil. To further enhance data quality and eliminate any potential residual background, we employ additional subtraction using SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996). To isolate the emission line from the continuum, we follow the method described in Kashino et al. (2023). This involves using a median filter technique that models the continuum with a sliding window, or “kernel”. By subtracting this modeled continuum from the original data, we effectively extract the emission line image.

With the fully calibrated images, we then measure the astrometry offset between the short wavelength (SW) direct images and the reduced F444W mosaic to align each grism exposure with the direct image, this step is essential to allow the spectral tracing models work properly. The spectral tracing, grism dispersion and sensitivity models are produced from multiple JWST/NIRCam Cycle-1 programs (PID: 1076/1536/1537/1538), the details are described in Sun et al. (2023). We extract the 1d spectra with optimal extraction (Horne, 1986), and fit the emission line flux with a single Gaussian profile.

2.3 HST G102 and G141 Grisms

We utilize the archival HST grism observations from the CANDELS Lyman Alpha Emission At Reionization (CLEAR) survey (PI: Casey Papovich), as detailed in Simons et al. (2023), which provided 12-orbit depth observations with the HST/WFC3 using the G102 grism, covering 12 fields across both the GOODS-N and GOODS-S. Simons et al. (2023) expanded the original CLEAR survey dataset by incorporating observations from additional HST projects that utilize the G102 and G141 grisms overlapping with the CLEAR footprint. This approach achieved complete spectral coverage from 0.8 to 1.7 μ\mum throughout the observed areas. Leveraging this rich dataset, Simons et al. (2023) have compiled two spectroscopic catalogs that present emission line fluxes and redshifts, derived from a combination of photometry and grism spectroscopy.

In our analysis, we use the redshifts and combined Hα{\rm H\alpha} + [N ii] flux from the CLEAR catalog. To correct for [N ii] contamination, we apply the [N ii]/Hα{\rm H\alpha} ratios as a function of stellar mass at z1.5z\sim 1.5, as calibrated by the \textKMOS3D\text{KMOS}^{3D} program (Wuyts et al., 2016). For an in-depth understanding of the CLEAR survey’s methodology, including survey design, data reduction processes, and the galaxy catalog compilation, we refer readers to Simons et al. (2023).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Histogram showing the distribution of the F444W magnitude of our parent sample (gray) and final sample (red). The blue dashed line indicates our magnitude cut.

2.4 Sample Selection

We start with the NIRCam + HST catalog as described in Sec. 2.1 and select sources for further analysis as follows:

  • First, we perform a cross-match between the NIRCam+HST catalog (Sec. 2.1) with the CLEAR spectroscopic catalog (Sec. 2.3) using a matching radius of 0.′′50.\!^{\prime\prime}5, and retain only the galaxies with available spectroscopic redshift from the CLEAR survey.

  • We further refine our selection to include only those galaxies within the redshift range of 1<z<1.61<z<1.6, which aligns with the coverage of the NIRCam WFSS F444W filter for capturing the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line and the HST G141 grism for capturing the Hα{\rm H\alpha} line. The collection of galaxies that pass this phase of selection is referred to as our parent sample.

  • Additionally, selected galaxies must have an AB magnitude brighter than 25 in F444W and both Hα{\rm H\alpha} and Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} detections with a SNR greater than 5.

  • Lastly, we conduct spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting for the selected galaxies in the previous step. To ensure reliable results, we further restrict our sample by including only those with the SED fitting results with a reduced χν2\chi^{2}_{\nu} value of less than 3.

Our final sample consists of 42 galaxies from GOODS-S and 55 from GOODS-N. The distribution of F444W magnitudes for both our parent and final samples is displayed in Fig. 1.

3 ANALYSIS

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (left): Stellar mass versus SFR for our samples. Stellar mass is derived from SED fitting, SFR is calculated based on the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line flux without correction for dust extinction. Error bars for SFRs reflect flux uncertainties.The blue dashed line represents the SFR limit of 1.42 Myr1\mathrm{M}_{\odot}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1} at z=1.5z=1.5, using a Paα\alpha flux of 2×1018ergs1cm22\times 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}}. The green-shaded region illustrates the ±0.5\pm 0.5 dex range of the star formation main sequence at 1<z<1.51<z<1.5 derived by Whitaker et al. (2014). (right): Analogous to the left panel, yet here SFRs are adjusted for dust extinction. Error bars incorporate uncertainties from both flux measurements and dust extinction A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}).

3.1 SED Fitting

We conduct SED fitting using the photometric data to estimate stellar masses. We use Code Investigating GALaxy Emission (CIGALE, Boquien et al. 2019). CIGALE is particularly well-suited for analyzing data across a broad wavelength range, extending from X-ray to radio frequencies. Our SED fitting employs a delayed exponential model for star-formation history (sfhdelayed), mathematically represented as SFR(t)texp(t/τ){\rm SFR}(t)\propto t\exp(-t/\tau). For the stellar population synthesis, we utilize the model from Bruzual & Charlot (2003), assuming solar metallicity. The model incorporates dust attenuation based on the Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction law. A comprehensive description of the parameters used in our SED fitting can be found in Liu et al. (2023).

3.2 Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} Constraints on Nebular Reddening and SFRs

In this work, we adopt Case B recombination assumption with Te=104{\rm T_{e}=10^{4}} K and ne=102{\rm n_{e}=10^{2}} cm3{\rm cm^{-3}} as determined by photoionization models using CLOUDY version 17.02 (Ferland et al., 2017). Under these conditions, the model predicts intrinsic intensity ratios of Hα{\rm H\alpha}/Hβ{\rm H\beta} = 2.79 and Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}/Hβ{\rm H\beta} = 0.305. By applying the Calzetti et al. (2000) reddening curve (RvR_{\rm{v}} = 4.05) and comparing the observed Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} to Hα{\rm H\alpha} flux ratios with Case B predictions, we calculate E(BV)\textnebE(B-V)_{\text{neb}} for our sample:

E(BV)neb=2.5k(Hα)k(Paα)log10(Paα/Hα0.109)E(B-V)_{neb}=\frac{2.5}{k(H\alpha)-k(Pa\alpha)}\log_{10}\left(\frac{Pa\alpha/H\alpha}{0.109}\right)

Here, k(λ)k(\lambda) represents the extinction coefficient at wavelength λ\lambda, as prescribed by Calzetti et al. (2000). From the calculated color excess, we derive the extinction values A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) and A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) using:

A(λ)=k(λ)E(BV)A(\lambda)=k(\lambda)\cdot E(B-V)

Subsequently, with the estimated dust extinction from the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} line flux ratios, we compute the intrinsic SFRs. The selection of the parent sample in this study relies on the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} detection, which is sensitive to HII regions that signal active star formation. Thus, we expect the majority of our selected sources to be star-forming galaxies. To assess their star-forming activities more accurately, we derive dust-corrected SFRs using Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line flux and color excess E(BV)\textnebE(B-V)_{\text{neb}}. The Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} flux is determined by fitting a single Gaussian profile to continuum-subtracted 1D spectra (Sec. 2.2). Upon determining the intrinsic Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} flux using the Calzetti et al. (2000) approach, we convert it to the Hα{\rm H\alpha} flux based on the line ratio predicted under Case B recombination. SFRs are then estimated from the Hα{\rm H\alpha} luminosity following the SFR-LHαL_{\mathrm{H\alpha}} relation established by Kennicutt (1998):

SFRMyr1=7.9×1042LHα(ergs1)\frac{\mathrm{SFR}}{\mathrm{M_{\odot}}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}}=7.9\times 10^{-42}\,\,\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{H\alpha}}(\mathrm{erg\,s}^{-1}) (1)

To align with the Chabrier (2003) IMF, we scale the SFRs by dividing them by a factor of 1.53 (Driver et al., 2013). As illustrated in Fig. 2, most of our sample galaxies are located on or near the star formation main sequence predicted by Whitaker et al. (2014). Our analysis indicates that the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line is a robust indicator of SFRs, relatively unaffected by dust extinction and offers a more direct measure of the ionizing radiation from young O and B stars. This is particularly true for less massive galaxies with a stellar mass below 1010M\rm{10^{10}~{}M_{\odot}}, which are less affected by dust extinction, as demonstrated in the comparison between the left and right panels of Fig. 2.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Sequence from left to right illustrating intrinsic profile reconstruction: (1) The observed two-dimensional spectra. (2) The best-fit Sérsic model convolved with the PSF. (3) Residuals derived from the difference between the observed spectra (1) and the PSF-convolved Sérsic model (2). (4) The reconstructed intrinsic light distribution, obtained by adding the residuals to the best-fit Sérsic model prior to PSF convolution. This reconstructed profile is used for subsequent galaxy size analysis.

3.3 Size Measurements

In our redshift range of interest, the F444W grism captures the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission line, a robust tracer of SFRs, while the F444W image captures the rest-frame K-band image (\sim 2 μ\mum), providing an accurate measure of the galaxy’s stellar mass unaffected by star formation history (e.g., Kauffmann & Charlot, 1998; Bell & de Jong, 2001; Drory et al., 2004). Therefore, comparing the flux distributions from the F444W image and the F444W grism enables us to study the mechanisms governing star formation and mass assembly within galaxies, with minimal impact from dust extinction.

However, the NIRCam grism achieves a high resolution of R \sim 1600 at 3.95 μ\mum, which corresponds to a velocity dispersion of σ\sigma \sim 80 km/s (Nelson et al., 2023). This resolution will lead to morphological distortion of emission-line maps along the spectral axis of galaxies having velocity dispersion greater than 80 km/s. Therefore, the 2D spectra we extract are not purely emission line maps; they also incorporate kinematic properties along the spectral axis. Overcoming such degeneracy is possible with an additional medium-band filter that serves to extract emission line map (e.g., Nelson et al., 2023). Yet, this approach significantly narrows the applicable redshift range due to the coverage of medium filters. Recognizing these constraints, our analysis in this study is thus focused on examining the light profile distribution in the cross-dispersion direction, which remains unaffected by velocity dispersion. Our method involves the following steps:

  • Model fitting: We employ the technique outlined in Szomoru et al. (2010), which involves using a Sérsic R1/nR^{1/n} profile (Sérsic, 1963) to model the observed galaxy images and 2D spectra. We first select an unsaturated star within the same field of view to represent the PSF. Subsequently, we begin the Sérsic R1/nR^{1/n} fitting process using the initial parameters derived from SExtractor. To refine our model, we employ optimization techniques to adjust the parameters. The best-fit PSF-convolved Sérsic model is determined by the minimal residual.

  • Intrinsic Profile Reconstruction: Using the previously identified best-fit parameters, we construct a Sérsic profile and incorporate the residuals obtained from comparing the observed data with the PSF-convolved model. This profile, enhanced with the residuals, is considered the intrinsic flux profile for further size measurement analysis. Although the residuals are still affected by the PSF, this technique has proven to accurately reconstruct the true flux distribution, even for galaxies poorly described by a Sérsic profile (Szomoru et al., 2010). Fig. 3 schematically illustrates the reconstruction process.

  • Flux Distribution Analysis: With the reconstructed intrinsic profiles for both 2D spectra and images, we compute the one-dimensional cross-dispersion light intensity profile by summing pixel values across each row. Specifically, we begin by creating cutouts of the 2D spectra and images, each with dimensions of 3.′′0×3.′′03.\!^{\prime\prime}0\times 3.\!^{\prime\prime}0; we then rotate F444W images to align with the 2D spectra, ensuring the horizontal direction is set as the dispersion direction. Additionally, we mask out pixels identified in the segmentation maps as belonging to other galaxies and those with negative values from the continuum removal process, thereby effectively minimizing the effects of nearby galaxies and artifacts from bad pixels.

Based on the method above, we obtain flux profiles for both the stellar and star formation components in the cross-dispersion direction. To quantitatively compare the distributions of stellar mass and star formation in individual galaxies, we measure the half-light radius along the cross-dispersion direction. Given the different depths of the grisms and direct images, the SNR of the stellar components is higher than that of the SFR components. For a fair comparison, we define the total flux as the amount captured within a specified radius in the flux profile, with this boundary determined by the point at which the SNR of the 2D spectra drops to 1, thereby accounting for the spectra’s shallower depth. The half-light radius is then calculated by locating the point where the cumulative flux reaches half of the total flux. This point, measured from the center of the cutout along the y-axis, is defined as the half-light radius. Although this diverges from the traditional definition of half-light radius, this method facilitates a direct comparison of the spatial distributions of star formation and stellar mass within galaxies, based on their light profiles in the cross-dispersion direction.

3.4 Stacking

To enhance the SNR and measure the average properties of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W profiles, our sample is divided into two sets of bins: one based on stellar mass and another based on specific star formation rate (sSFR). For each categorization, galaxies are classified into low, medium, and high bins, with 32, 32, and 33 galaxies in each respective category. Following the methodology described in Nelson et al. (2016a), we stack the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} spectra and F444W images in each bin to create the mean profiles. Before proceeding with the stacking, we mask nearby sources using segmentation maps, deconvolve the PSF, and rotate the F444W images to ensure that the horizontal direction corresponds to the dispersion direction, as detailed in 3.3. To prevent the final stacked profile from being dominated by brighter sources, we apply weights based on their F444W flux. According to Nelson et al. (2016a), deprojecting, rotating, or scaling the images does not significantly affect our main conclusions; therefore, we do not apply additional rotation to the dispersion axis-aligned profiles. Furthermore, we calculate the half-light radius in the cross-dispersion direction of the stacked profiles using the same method applied to individual galaxies.

4 Results

In this section, we present the results of our analyses. First, we discuss the nebular reddening values derived from the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} line ratio. Additionally, we present the dust extinction and SFRs inferred from Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} emission lines. We then explore differences in flux distribution between the F444W and Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}, and examine how size measurements correlate with stellar mass and sSFR to understand the structural build-up of galaxies. Finally, we discuss the average properties for stacked profiles of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W.

4.1 Dust Extinction

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Stellar mass versus ratio of observed SFR predicted using Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} respectively (left y-axis), and stellar mass versus A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) (right y-axis). A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) is calculated based on the observed ratio of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} flux, and is thus proportional to the observed SFR ratio.

We examine the nebular reddening within our sample galaxies and investigate the relationship between dust extinction and stellar mass. In Sec. 3.2, we derive the E(BV)\textnebE(B-V)_{\text{neb}} using the ratio of the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and Hα{\rm H\alpha} emission lines. We then calculate the dust extinction A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) and A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) from these ratios. We present our findings in Fig. 4, with error bars indicating the flux measurement uncertainties.

Our results reveal a positive correlation between stellar mass and dust extinction, as inferred from Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}-to-Hα{\rm H\alpha} line flux ratios. This is consistent with previous studies that employed Balmer-line ratios to assess dust extinction, as well as those using far-IR and UV continuum measurements (e.g., Garn & Best, 2010; Zahid et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2015; Fudamoto et al., 2020; Shapley et al., 2023). Based on the model predictions by Calzetti et al. (2000), A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) is significantly smaller than A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) due to the much smaller k(λ\lambda). Our results indicate that at our target redshift, A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) is typically around \sim 0.1 mag, with the median value increasing to only \sim 0.2 mag in the most massive bin. While Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} is intrinsically fainter than Hα{\rm H\alpha} (IPaα/I = 0.11 under Case B), this results demonstrate the robustness of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} as a star formation indicator, less attenuated by dust extinction and more sensitive to the intrinsic SFR. Such conclusions are broadly in agreement with Reddy et al. (2023), who investigated the Paschen lines of 63 galaxies at redshifts z=1.0z=1.03.13.1 using NIRSpec. We note that a small fraction of galaxies in our sample exhibit a negative extinction. This happens when the observed ratio of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} to Hα{\rm H\alpha} is less than the dust-free minimum value of 0.109, which is not physical. Such observations could be attributed to the relative faintness of the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} line in comparison to the Hα{\rm H\alpha} line, possibly leading to incomplete detection of the galaxy’s fainter regions in the 2D spectra. Furthermore, our reliance on empirical calibration for Hα{\rm H\alpha} flux, based on the [N ii]/Hα{\rm H\alpha} ratio, introduces additional uncertainties into the Hα{\rm H\alpha} flux determination.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: (left): Effective radius measured at cross-dispersion direction of F444W images versus stellar mass. (middle): Effective radius measured at cross-dispersion direction of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} 2d spectra versus stellar mass. (right): Size ratio of this two components versus stellar mass. The red dashed line corresponds to RPaα/RF444W=1\mathrm{R_{Pa\alpha}}/\mathrm{R_{F444W}}=1, which suggests a coherent distribution of star formation and stellar. Larger data points denote median values within three defined stellar mass bins: 108.510^{8.5} to 109.510^{9.5}, 109.510^{9.5} to 1010.510^{10.5}, 1010.510^{10.5} to 1011.510^{11.5} solar masses.
Refer to caption
Figure 6: Same as Fig. 5 but as a function of sSFR

4.2 Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} as a Star Formation Indicator

Thanks to the HST grism, previous studies (e.g., Nelson et al., 2016a; Vulcani et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2019; Matharu et al., 2022) have significantly advanced our understanding of star formation regions within galaxies through spatially resolved Hα{\rm H\alpha} emission line maps. As one of the most prominent hydrogen recombination lines, Hα{\rm H\alpha} is closely linked to ionized regions and serves as a reliable tracer of star formation. However, even Hα{\rm H\alpha} is susceptible to significant dust extinction. This presents a challenge for studying star formation locations as the dust amount may differ significantly across various regions of a galaxy (Nelson et al., 2016b; Tacchella et al., 2018; Matharu et al., 2023). Such variability introduces notable uncertainties in quantifying galaxy sizes and analyzing morphological features. The utilization of spatially resolved Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission line map offers a solution to overcome these challenges. In this section, we present the galaxy sizes derived from Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} 2D spectra and F444W continuum data, offering insights into the spatial distributions of star formation activities and existing stellar mass within galaxies. In order to better understand the observed size difference in our galaxies, we investigate the relationship between the SFR-to-stellar size ratio, sSFR, and stellar mass.

4.2.1 Half-light Radius of Individual Galaxies

The size of galaxies serves as a fundamental metric for characterizing their structure, shedding light on bulge and disk growth and the properties of the encompassing dark matter halos (e.g., Mo et al., 1998; Kravtsov, 2013; van der Wel et al., 2014). By comparing half-light radii measured for different components of galaxies, such as the stellar component and star formation component, we can gain vital information on how galaxies build their massive structures through vigorous star formation and how these activities vary across different evolutionary stages. Due to the limitation by the nature of our data, this study compares the half-light radius measured in the cross-dispersion direction. The calculation process for half-light radius is detailed in Sec. 3.3. We observe that the half-light radii of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} generally exceed those of the F444W images, indicating SFR regions are relatively more extended than the stellar mass distributions.

Furthermore, not only does galaxy size itself offer important clues about mass assembly, but its correlations with stellar masses, SFRs, and redshifts are equally crucial and have been extensively investigated. One of the key discoveries is the galaxy size-mass relation. Previous studies have shown that two main classes of galaxies, star-forming and quiescent, follow distinctly different size-mass relations (e.g., Kauffmann et al., 2003; Baldry et al., 2006). One possible scenario to explain this discrepancy is that star-forming and quiescent galaxies accumulate their stellar populations through different processes (van Dokkum et al., 2015). However, this is still a topic under much debate. To further investigate the origin, we here study the correlation between size measurements and stellar mass to pinpoint the star formation regions within galaxies and track how these regions shift during various evolutionary stages.

Fig. 5 depicts how the half-light radius varies with stellar mass. The size of both Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} traced star-forming disks and continuum-traced stellar components shows a weak increasing trend with stellar mass. However, it is noted that discussions about the mass-size relationship for these components based on this ‘effective radius’ is not appropriate. This limitation arises because our measurement is one-dimensional, taken in the cross-dispersion direction, which means galaxy orientation could significantly affect the size measurements, especially for those with small axis ratios (b/ab/a). Although this measurement for galaxy size may seem arbitrary, our goal is to compare the flux distribution between SFR and stellar components. Even with data extracted from one direction, this comparison remains feasible. We observe that galaxies within the lower mass bin show similar sizes for both their SFR and stellar components. However, the ratio between these sizes tends to increase towards the higher mass bins. This observation aligns with findings reported by Nelson et al. (2016a), who examined the Hα{\rm H\alpha} distribution using HST grism observations. Nelson et al. (2016a) reported that more massive galaxies are likely to have more extended Hα{\rm H\alpha} emissions; in contrast, for galaxies in the lower mass range, the size of the Hα{\rm H\alpha} region and the stellar continuum region is rather consistent. The trends found here and in Nelson et al. (2016a) both consistently suggest ongoing star formation activities occurring at larger radii compared to the distribution of existing stars, supporting the inside-out growth model of galaxies.

We further examine if the size ratio evolves with star formation per solar mass, specifically sSFR, as presented in Fig. 6. For calculating sSFR, we adopt the dust-corrected SFRs as described in Sec. 3.2, taking into account uncertainties from both flux measurements and dust extinction. Galaxies within the highest sSFR bin display compact structures in both their stellar and star formation components, with their size ratios indicating remarkably similar sizes.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Stacks of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} (red) and F444W images (blue). From left to right, the sequence represents the stacked profiles of low, medium, and high stellar mass/sSFR bins. The dimensions of the stacked images are 1.′′5×1.′′51.\!^{\prime\prime}5\times 1.\!^{\prime\prime}5 for both \textPaα\text{Pa}\alpha and F444W.
Refer to caption
Figure 8: (left): Half-light radius of stacked profiles binned by stellar mass. (right): Similar to the left but binned by sSFR.

4.2.2 Average Properties From Stacked Profiles

As discussed in the Sec. 4, the relatively faint nature of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission line may lead to missing flux at the fainter part of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} 2d spectra. To mitigate this issue, we categorize galaxies according to their stellar mass and sSFR, and perform stacking analysis. Our stacked profiles for the three different bins of stellar mass (top two rows) and sSFR (bottom two rows) are illustrated in Fig. 7. We subsequently measured the half-light radius of these stacked profiles in the cross-dispersion direction, with our results displayed in Figure 8. The stacked Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} profiles exhibit a more extended structure compared to the F444W images in the high and medium stellar mass bins, as evidenced by their larger effective radii. This trend is consistent with observations in individual galaxies, as shown in Fig. 5. However, when analyzing the stacked profiles binned by sSFR, it becomes apparent that these bins are predominantly influenced by stellar mass rather than SFRs. This results in a correlation that is almost identical but opposite to what is observed with the stellar mass plot.

Nevertheless, these results do not necessarily imply that galaxy mass assembly does not evolve with different SFRs. Our sample mainly consists of main sequence galaxies; therefore, their stellar mass-SFR correlations are relatively well-established. Consequently, sSFR may not effectively classify galaxies into different star formation stages. To better understand where star formation occurs in galaxies with varying star-forming modes, it is essential to examine more extreme cases, such as starburst and quiescent galaxies.

5 Discussions

5.1 Dust, Star Formation, and Galaxy Mass Assembly

In Sec. 4.2, we investigated the half-light radius of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W, and their potential correlation with stellar mass. Our main findings are illustrated in Fig. 5 and 8, which show that galaxies, especially those with high stellar masses, exhibit Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} extent notably larger than their stellar continuum. These observations align with the findings of Nelson et al. (2016a), who reported a larger effective radius for Hα{\rm H\alpha} compared to F140W in a study of 3200 galaxies at 0.7<z<1.50.7<z<1.5. Notably, the size difference was more pronounced with increasing stellar mass. While Nelson et al. (2016a) observed a steeper size evolution with stellar mass than our results suggest, this difference could be attributed to the different tracers used, i.e., Hα{\rm H\alpha} and F140W in their study versus Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W in ours. Given that our tracers are expected to be more sensitive to attenuated emissions, the difference indicates that galaxy central regions of our galaxies systematically host more attenuated emissions.

It should be noted that the half-light radius, determined from the integrated profile along the cross-dispersion axis, may not directly reflect the overall size of the galaxy due to the significant impacts of orientation and ellipticity. This factor might also contribute to the observed scatter in the relationship between size and stellar mass as shown in Fig. 5. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the analysis of the ratio of galaxy sizes remains a robust metric.

The observed increase in galaxy size ratio with stellar mass necessitates further investigation into the underlying physical processes that govern galaxy structural formation. It remains a challenging question to understand how galaxies form their central mass concentrations, particularly massive bulges, and evolve into mature, passive systems, given the presence of active star formation regions surrounded by dust. Our study provides a direct probe of star-forming regions, minimizing reliance on assumptions required for dust extinction corrections, such as UV slope and SED fitting techniques. Consequently, we anticipate that the regions traced by Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} will predominantly represent ionized hydrogen areas within the galaxies. Based on this foundation, and the positive correlation between Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}-to-stellar size ratio and increasing stellar mass (Fig. 5), our finding that most galaxies exhibit larger Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} sizes supports the inside-out growth model of galaxies (e.g., van Dokkum et al., 2010). This model suggests that galaxies gradually build up their outer regions while the inner regions have completed their evolution more rapidly.

Our study distinguishes itself from previous research that utilized Hα{\rm H\alpha}, which faces significant uncertainties due to dust-obscured central regions. Our research confirms the scenario of extended star-forming regions, employing an independent tracer made feasible for the first time by NIRCam WFSS. Although Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} may still be significantly affected by dust extinction in extremely dusty starburst galaxies, as inferred from a recent study by Bik et al. (2023) that studied a galaxy with AV = 17.2, our sample primarily consists of normal star-forming galaxies, most of which have A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) << 0.2, with the dustiest having A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) \sim 0.6.

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Cutout stamps showing Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} 2D spectra (top) and RGB images (bottom) for three galaxies in our sample, each measuring 2.′′5×2.′′52.\!^{\prime\prime}5\times 2.\!^{\prime\prime}5. We also note the SFR (M/yr\rm{M_{\odot}/yr}) and the stellar mass (log M/M\rm{M_{*}/M_{\odot}}).

5.2 Spatial Distribution of Star Formation in Massive Galaxies: Clumpy, Extended, and Compact

As discussed in Sec. 5.1, we observe considerable scatter in the measurements of galaxy size ratios, particularly among medium-mass to massive galaxies (i.e. galaxies with stellar mass M>109.5M\rm{M_{*}>10^{9.5}\,M_{\odot}}). Within our sample, we identify three distinct flux distributions in the emission line maps of these galaxies. Even among galaxies with similar stellar masses and SFRs, their Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} flux profile can vary significantly. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 9, the galaxy on the left displays extended and clumpy star-forming regions, whereas the middle one shows centrally concentrated star-forming regions; the right galaxy, however, exhibits expanded star-forming regions, suggesting inside-out growth. The diverse star formation regions observed in our massive galaxies are interesting. The overall trend revealed by stacked profiles in Fig. 8 shows that massive galaxies exhibit larger star formation regions, in good agreement with findings from previous studies. However, the larger scatter in the size ratio observed in individual massive galaxies (right panel of Fig. 5), which originates from galaxies with different star formation patterns, warrants further investigation. Swinbank et al. (2012) studied nine Hα{\rm H\alpha}-selected galaxies at 0.8<z<2.20.8<z<2.2 using SINFONI/VLT and reported a variety of Hα{\rm H\alpha} morphologies; at least six of these galaxies exhibited extended or clumpy features, while two displayed compact features. In a related study, Förster Schreiber et al. (2018) analyzed 35 star-forming galaxies and found that the majority were late-type, disk-dominated systems, with eight displaying prominent rings or off-center clumps. The diversity observed in Hα{\rm H\alpha} is consistent with the variety of morphologies we have seen in Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}. In this section, we delve into the underlying physics behind the formation of clumpy, extended, and compact star formation regions in these galaxies.

Both the clumps distributed at the outskirts of galaxies and the extended Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} can lead to a higher effective radius measured with Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} compared to that of the stellar continuum. Gaseous clumps, often contributing to the formation of bulges and disks, are regarded as key drivers of galaxy structure formation and evolution and are commonly observed in star-forming galaxies at z>1z>1 (e.g., Dekel et al., 2009a, b). The existence of massive clumpy galaxies can be attributed to dynamically unstable gas, which leads to the formation of giant star-forming clumps within the disk (Krumholz et al., 2018), or it could be indicative of gas-rich minor merger events (Agertz et al., 2009).

To further understand the formation mechanisms of these complex structures, observations of both ionized and molecular gas are essential. There are only a handful of studies focusing on clumpy galaxies; recently, Bik et al. (2023) analyzed the dusty, star-forming galaxy GN20 at z4z\sim 4 using MIRI/MRS, detecting spatially resolved Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}. Their emission line map revealed that Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emissions are concentrated in four distinct clumps. Additionally, GN20 was observed with ALMA (Hodge et al., 2012, 2016), where the CO(2-1) emission also revealed a similar clumpy structure. These findings suggest that the galaxy is in the late stages of a major merger, implying that the clumps in the gas-rich disk are a result of this merger, while the central starburst is directly driven by the event. Similarly, Cochrane et al. (2021) reported bright, extended structures in a z=2.2z=2.2 galaxy, with clear clumps in Hα{\rm H\alpha} and extended dust continuum emissions. This disordered morphology and extreme star formation are linked to a merger event. Although our sample primarily consists of main sequence galaxies, it is possible that some of the clumpy structures we observed are triggered by merger activities. Such sub-structures remain an active area of exploration, and our study indicates that clumpy star-forming populations can be efficiently studied with WFSS. To fully comprehend the impact of dust and molecular gas in shaping the characteristics of HII regions, further investigations using sub-mm observations are crucial. The extended star formation region observed in the middle panel of Fig. 9 has been well-studied in previous Hα{\rm H\alpha} observations utilizing HST grism and adaptive optics (e.g., Nelson et al., 2016a, b; Vulcani et al., 2016; Matharu et al., 2022). Unlike rest-frame UV-optical light, Hα{\rm H\alpha} emission suffers less attenuation by dust and is closely linked to the star formation activities of massive stars. Given the relatively short lifespans of massive stars, their observed population offers a direct measure of the current SFR (e.g., Kennicutt, 1998; Pflamm-Altenburg et al., 2007). It was reported that when galaxies assemble their massive structures, star formation typically starts in the central region and then spreads outward. This process helps build up the galaxy’s outskirts, leading to the larger size of star formation regions observed in massive galaxies.

Compact star formation presents another intriguing scenario for further investigation. One hypothesis for the most massive galaxy populations is that they undergo a process known as “compaction”, which leads to the evolution of massive bulges over cosmic time (Dekel & Burkert, 2014; Zolotov et al., 2015; Lacerda et al., 2020; Marques-Chaves et al., 2022). Subsequent starbursts and/or AGN feedback may then drive these galaxies toward quiescence (Genzel et al., 2014; Yesuf et al., 2014), resulting in quenched, dense cores (Damjanov et al., 2009; van Dokkum et al., 2009; Szomoru et al., 2012; Morishita & Ichikawa, 2016). Recent studies have elucidated the formation mechanisms of compact galaxies. Franco et al. (2020) highlighted the significant role of compact galaxies at z \sim 2.5 - 3, associating them with short depletion timescales. Simulations such as Illustris suggest that these galaxies often form early in extreme environments characterized by an abundance of gas and/or in (post-)merging systems where large inflow of gas trigger intense starbursts (Wellons et al., 2015). The acquisition of external gas is believe to be responsible for initiating secondary star formation within the core regions of these galaxies that result in their compact morphology (Chen et al., 2016). Importantly, such populations might be underrepresented or even missed in previous Hα{\rm H\alpha} analyses, at redshifts z=12z=1-2, our target epoch corresponding to the peak of cosmic star formation activity, dust extinction affecting Hα{\rm H\alpha} can vary significantly, with magnitudes ranging from 1\sim 1, to >3>3 (e.g., Förster Schreiber et al., 2009; Sobral et al., 2012; Kashino et al., 2013; Koyama et al., 2019). Moreover, dust extinction can vary widely across a galaxy. As discussed in Matharu et al. (2023), dust attenuation is not a constant value within galaxies; instead, the spatial distribution of dust attenuation can vary across different stellar masses. A recent study by Cochrane et al. (2021) investigated a massive galaxy at z=2.2z=2.2 using multi-wavelength data and found A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) values ranging from 23\sim 2-3 in the outskirts to >> 5 in the central region. Interestingly, their Hα{\rm H\alpha} emission line map, obtained using SINFONI/VLT, showed a clear offset from the peak of the dust continuum emission traced by ALMA. Tadaki et al. (2014) also reported color gradients in galactic clumps, with central clumps being redder, indicating that dusty star-formation activity is concentrated in these nuclear regions. Such dust gradients introduce significant complexity to the analysis of Hα{\rm H\alpha}-traced HII regions, potentially biasing detections toward galaxies with extended star formation regions. Galaxies featuring compact, yet dusty, star formation regions might remain undetected in Hα{\rm H\alpha} observations. Therefore, compact star-forming galaxies might still be understudied in previous Hα{\rm H\alpha}-based work. Future surveys using better tracers less affected by dust, such as Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}, will be crucial to provide a comprehensive view of the different paths of galaxy structure formation.

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Comparative distribution of half-light radii derived from F444W images (x-axis) and modeled continuum (y-axis) in the cross-dispersion direction.

5.3 Robustness of Size Measurements Across Imaging Depths

One might question our size measurements due to the differing depths of the F444W imaging and WFSS spectroscopy, with the former being significantly deeper. Such a depth discrepancy could result in an underestimation of the size of star formation regions, as the fainter outskirts of galaxies may remain undetected. Ideally, a comparison between the continuum captured by WFSS and the observed emission lines would help to mitigate these discrepancies. However, practical implementation of this method faces significant challenges as the continuum captured in dispersed spectra is frequently contaminated by nearby continua, thereby complicating the accuracy of measurements. This issue is particularly pronounced for larger galaxies, where the continuum is more likely to overlap with other sources. Therefore, our analysis relies on direct images from F444W. To further assess the potential effects of this depth difference, we carefully inspect each source and select those without significant contamination from nearby galaxies. We measure their sizes using the modeled continuum (see Sec. 2.2 for the continuum modeling process), applying the same measurement method as used for F444W images and 2D spectra. The results, illustrated in Fig. 10, show that measurements based on the modeled continuum and F444W are generally consistent. Therefore, we assert that the depth difference does not significantly impact our conclusions. Even if the sizes of the 2D spectra are underestimated, our findings that the star formation regions traced by 2D spectra are more extended remain unaffected.

The inherent complexities in galaxy morphology and kinematics, particularly the elongation of morphologies along the spectral axis due to kinematic distortions, prevent us from obtaining accurate and separate information on spatial and spectral information. As discussed in Nelson et al. (2023), for high EW emission lines, such as Hα{\rm H\alpha}, a combination of medium-band filters and WFSS can provide insights into both the velocity and morphology of the emission line maps. However, this approach may be challenging for weak lines or for fields without medium-band filters on the targeted line. To apply this method to our research objectives, specifically using Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} to trace dust-free star formation, a larger sample size would be required. A future joint analysis involving multiple programs with available medium-band and WFSS observations will offer more opportunities to study galaxies with strong Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission lines.

6 Summary and Future Prospect

This paper presented a comprehensive analysis of resolved Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emissions within 97 galaxies at 1<z<1.61<z<1.6 in the GOODS-North and GOODS-South fields utilizing JWST NIRCam WFSS. By combining this new dataset with the previous legacy HST grism observations, we were able to not only secure the redshift determination but also robustly determine the dust extinction for our sample galaxies. The main findings of our research are summarized below:

  • We calculated the dust extinction values, A(Hα{\rm H\alpha}) and A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}), for our sample of 97 galaxies and confirmed that Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} is an excellent tracer for star formation activities in Hii regions, as it is not significantly attenuated by dust. We observed a maximum A(Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}) of less than 0.6, and noted that low-mass galaxies are almost attenuation-free. This establishes a solid basis for analyzing spatially resolved star-forming activities within galaxies with minimal impact from dust.

  • We utilized HST and JWST photometric data to estimate stellar masses through SED fitting and derived SFRs from Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} emission line flux. Our sample predominantly features main sequence galaxies, and the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha}-derived SFRs exhibit minimal variation before and after dust extinction correction, with the exception of a few of the most massive galaxies.

  • From the analysis of individual and stacked emission maps of Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} and F444W, we found that for galaxies with medium and high stellar mass, the Paα{\rm Pa\alpha} show a larger size compared to the stellar size, whereas for galaxies with low stellar mass, the dimensions remain comparable.

  • We explored the size evolution of stellar and star-forming regions, and their ratios, across different stellar mass bins. In low-mass galaxies, star formation is concentrated centrally, resulting in compact sizes with stellar and star-forming regions being similar in dimension. In contrast, medium- and high-mass galaxies show more diverse star formation regions that can be extended, clumpy, or compact. This diversity indicates varying star formation mechanisms, potentially driven by external gas inflow or mergers, which become more prominent as stellar mass increases.

We acknowledge the teams of the JWST observation programs #1180, #1895, and the HST observation program #14227 for their hard work in designing and planning these programs, and for generously making their data publicly available. The data presented in this paper were retrieved from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) at the Space Telescope Science Institute, the specific observations analyzed can be accessed via http://dx.doi.org/10.17909/z0sb-mk09 (catalog DOI: 10.17909/z0sb-mk09). We thank Fengwu Sun for helping with the data reduction. We thank Jasleen Matharu, Yongda Zhu and Yunjing Wu for the valuable discussion. This work was supported by the KAKENHI Grant Numbers 22K21349 and 24KJ0394 through the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). This work was supported by JST SPRING (Grant Number JPMJSP2114). Support for this study was provided by NASA through grants HST-GO-15804 and HST-GO-17231 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

References

  • Agertz et al. (2009) Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00685.x
  • 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. (2018) Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f
  • Baldry et al. (2006) Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x
  • Barro et al. (2016) Barro, G., Kriek, M., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L32
  • Behroozi et al. (2019) Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182
  • Bell & de Jong (2001) Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212, doi: 10.1086/319728
  • Bertin & Arnouts (1996) Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164
  • Bik et al. (2023) Bik, A., Álvarez-Márquez, J., Colina, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03074, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03074
  • Boquien et al. (2019) Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156
  • Bruzual & Charlot (2003) Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x
  • Bunker et al. (2023) Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159
  • Calistro Rivera et al. (2018) Calistro Rivera, G., Hodge, J. A., Smail, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacffa
  • Calzetti et al. (2000) Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692
  • Chabrier (2003) Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392
  • Chen et al. (2020) Chen, C.-C., Harrison, C. M., Smail, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936286
  • Chen et al. (2016) Chen, Y.-M., Shi, Y., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13269, doi: 10.1038/ncomms13269
  • Cheng et al. (2020) Cheng, C., Ibar, E., Smail, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3036
  • Cochrane et al. (2021) Cochrane, R. K., Best, P. N., Smail, I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab467
  • Damjanov et al. (2009) Damjanov, I., McCarthy, P. J., Abraham, R. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/101
  • Dekel & Burkert (2014) Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331
  • Dekel et al. (2009a) Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009a, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785
  • Dekel et al. (2009b) Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009b, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648
  • Driver et al. (2013) Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts717
  • Drory et al. (2004) Drory, N., Bender, R., Feulner, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 742, doi: 10.1086/420781
  • Elbaz et al. (2018) Elbaz, D., Leiton, R., Nagar, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732370
  • Feldmann (2020) Feldmann, R. 2020, Communications Physics, 3, 226, doi: 10.1038/s42005-020-00493-0
  • Ferland et al. (2017) Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877
  • Förster Schreiber et al. (2009) Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouché, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364
  • Förster Schreiber et al. (2018) Förster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., Mancini, C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadd49
  • Franco et al. (2020) Franco, M., Elbaz, D., Zhou, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038312
  • Fudamoto et al. (2020) Fudamoto, Y., Oesch, P. A., Magnelli, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3248
  • Fujimoto et al. (2018) Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6c4
  • Fukugita et al. (1996) Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748, doi: 10.1086/117915
  • Gardner et al. (2006) Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7
  • Gardner et al. (2023) Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.04869, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.04869
  • Garn & Best (2010) Garn, T., & Best, P. N. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 421, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17321.x
  • Genzel et al. (2014) Genzel, R., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Rosario, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/7
  • Gómez-Guijarro et al. (2022) Gómez-Guijarro, C., Elbaz, D., Xiao, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142352
  • Hodge et al. (2012) Hodge, J. A., Carilli, C. L., Walter, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/11
  • Hodge et al. (2016) Hodge, J. A., Swinbank, A. M., Simpson, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/103
  • Horne (1986) Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801
  • Ikeda et al. (2022) Ikeda, R., Tadaki, K.-i., Iono, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6cdc
  • Kashino et al. (2023) Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588
  • Kashino et al. (2013) Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L8
  • Kauffmann & Charlot (1998) Kauffmann, G., & Charlot, S. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L23, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01708.x
  • Kauffmann et al. (2003) Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x
  • Kennicutt (1998) Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189
  • Koyama et al. (2019) Koyama, Y., Shimakawa, R., Yamamura, I., Kodama, T., & Hayashi, M. 2019, PASJ, 71, 8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy113
  • Kravtsov (2013) Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, ApJ, 764, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L31
  • Krumholz et al. (2018) Krumholz, M. R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J. C., & Crocker, R. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty852
  • Lacerda et al. (2020) Lacerda, E. A. D., Sánchez, S. F., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa008
  • Liang et al. (2019) Liang, L., Feldmann, R., Kereš, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2134
  • Liu et al. (2023) Liu, Z., Morishita, T., & Kodama, T. 2023, ApJ, 955, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef19
  • Madau & Dickinson (2014) Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615
  • Marques-Chaves et al. (2022) Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., Álvarez-Márquez, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2893
  • Matharu et al. (2021) Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3
  • Matharu et al. (2022) Matharu, J., Papovich, C., Simons, R. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8471
  • Matharu et al. (2023) Matharu, J., Muzzin, A., Sarrouh, G. T. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1db
  • Mo et al. (1998) Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x
  • Morishita (2021) Morishita, T. 2021, ApJS, 253, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abce67
  • Morishita & Ichikawa (2016) Morishita, T., & Ichikawa, T. 2016, ApJ, 816, 87, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/87
  • Morishita & Stiavelli (2023) Morishita, T., & Stiavelli, M. 2023, ApJ, 946, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbf50
  • Morishita et al. (2024a) Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Schuldt, S., & Grillo, C. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10037
  • Morishita et al. (2024b) Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 963, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1404
  • Nelson et al. (2012) Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L28
  • Nelson et al. (2016a) Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 828, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27
  • Nelson et al. (2016b) Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 817, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L9
  • Nelson et al. (2019) Nelson, E. J., Tadaki, K.-i., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38a
  • Nelson et al. (2023) Nelson, E. J., Brammer, G., Gimenez-Arteaga, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.06887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.06887
  • Neufeld et al. (2024) Neufeld, C., van Dokkum, P., Asali, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10816, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.10816
  • Oesch et al. (2023) Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411
  • Oke & Gunn (1983) Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817
  • Pflamm-Altenburg et al. (2007) Pflamm-Altenburg, J., Weidner, C., & Kroupa, P. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1550, doi: 10.1086/523033
  • Reddy et al. (2023) Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., & Brammer, G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc869
  • Reddy et al. (2015) Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 259, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/259
  • Rieke et al. (2023) Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d
  • Sandles et al. (2023) Sandles, L., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03931
  • Sérsic (1963) Sérsic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41
  • Shapley et al. (2023) Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 954, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea5a
  • Shetty et al. (2013) Shetty, R., Kelly, B. C., & Bigiel, F. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts617
  • Simons et al. (2023) Simons, R. C., Papovich, C., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc517
  • Simpson et al. (2015) Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/81
  • Sobral et al. (2012) Sobral, D., Best, P. N., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19977.x
  • Sun et al. (2023) Sun, F., Egami, E., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c
  • Swinbank et al. (2012) Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., Sobral, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/130
  • Szomoru et al. (2012) Szomoru, D., Franx, M., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, ApJ, 749, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/121
  • Szomoru et al. (2010) Szomoru, D., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L244, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L244
  • Tacchella et al. (2018) Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8b
  • Tadaki et al. (2014) Tadaki, K.-i., Kodama, T., Tanaka, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/77
  • Tadaki et al. (2017) Tadaki, K.-i., Genzel, R., Kodama, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/135
  • Tadaki et al. (2020) Tadaki, K.-i., Belli, S., Burkert, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf4a
  • van der Wel et al. (2014) van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28
  • van Dokkum et al. (2009) van Dokkum, P. G., Kriek, M., & Franx, M. 2009, Nature, 460, 717, doi: 10.1038/nature08220
  • van Dokkum et al. (2010) van Dokkum, P. G., Whitaker, K. E., Brammer, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1018, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1018
  • van Dokkum et al. (2015) van Dokkum, P. G., Nelson, E. J., Franx, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/23
  • Vulcani et al. (2015) Vulcani, B., Treu, T., Schmidt, K. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/161
  • Vulcani et al. (2016) —. 2016, ApJ, 833, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/178
  • Wellons et al. (2015) Wellons, S., Torrey, P., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303
  • Whitaker et al. (2014) Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/104
  • Wuyts et al. (2016) Wuyts, E., Wisnioski, E., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 74, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/74
  • Wuyts et al. (2013) Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/135
  • Yesuf et al. (2014) Yesuf, H. M., Faber, S. M., Trump, J. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84
  • Zahid et al. (2013) Zahid, H. J., Yates, R. M., Kewley, L. J., & Kudritzki, R. P. 2013, ApJ, 763, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/92
  • Zolotov et al. (2015) Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740