## The BoRGJWST Survey: Abundance and Mass-to-light Ratio of Luminous z = 7 -9 Galaxies from Independent Sight Lines with NIRSpec

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00843v1-figure-dadfaa42-9a7c-4bbb-87f6-9ea77d5a438d.jpg)

1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, 430 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 2 Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin, 2515 Speedway, Austin, TX, 78712, USA 3 Department of Astronomy, University of Geneva, Chemin Pegasi 51, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland 4 IPAC, California Institute of Technology, MC 314-6, 1200 E. California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 5 National Astronomical Research Institute of Thailand (NARIT), Mae Rim, Chiang Mai, 50180, Thailand 6 Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN)

7

Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 128, DK-2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark

8

Max Planck Institut f¨r Astronomie, K¨nigstuhl 17, D-69117, Heidelberg, Germany

u

o

9 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia

ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia

11 Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

12

Dept. of Physics &amp; Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

13 Dept. of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

- 14 Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

15 NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, 950 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719, USA 16 Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute, 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA

## ABSTRACT

We present new results on the rest-frame UV luminosity function (UVLF) and stellar mass-to-light (M/L) ratio of bright (M UV ≲ -20 mag) spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies at z = 7 -9 derived from the BoRGJWST survey, a unique data set of NIRSpec prism follow up of HST -selected sources from random-pointing imaging. By selecting galaxies from over 200 independent sight lines, the survey minimizes cosmic variance ensuring a statistically robust sample of the bright-galaxy population during the epoch of reionization. The data is used to constrain, for the first time, the bright end of the UVLF at z = 7 -9 from spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies over eight independent fields. We find that the bright end of the UVLF is higher than found using imaging over JWST legacy fields, suggesting the latter may be significantly affected by cosmic variance, and thus reducing the tension with recent findings from JWST at z &gt; 10 and comparable to models invoking little dust attenuation and bursty star formation. Additionally, we use the galaxies' JWST spectra to infer their stellar masses and M/L ratios relative to other HST and JWST studies. We show that the stellar mass scales almost linearly with UV luminosity (M ∗ ∝ L 0 85 . ± 0 12 . UV ), albeit with large ( ∼ 0 5 dex) intrinsic scatter, consistent with . stochastic bursts of star formation in early galaxy formation.

Keywords: galaxies: high-redshift, star formation - cosmology: observations, reionization, dark ages

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The abundance of UV-bright galaxies is a key quantity for understanding the critical physical processes shaping galaxy evolution, particularly at early cosmic times,

10

from cosmic dawn to the epoch of Hydrogen reionization (see Robertson 2022, and references within). The restframe UV luminosity function (UVLF), which details the number density of UV-bright galaxies, is a powerful probe of the intricate dynamics responsible for star formation efficiency driven by supernovae and active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback, dust attenuation, and the build-up of dark matter halos (e.g. Somerville et al. 2008; Bower et al. 2012; Finkelstein et al. 2012).

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been used for over a decade to find UV-bright galaxy candidates when the universe was as young as ∼ 400 million years old ( z ∼ 11). Deep legacy surveys pioneering this search include the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS; Grogin et al. 2011; Koekemoer et al. 2011, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Bouwens et al. 2010; Oesch et al. 2010; Ellis et al. 2013, and the Hubble Frontier Fields (HFF; Lotz et al. 2017).

A complimentary method to find bright galaxy candidates that may not be fully sampled by deep surveys covering the same area in contiguous fields are the pureparallel programs such as the WFC3 Infrared Spectroscopic Parallel survey (WISP; Atek et al. 2010), the Brightest of Reionizing Galaxies Survey (BoRG; Trenti et al. 2011), and the Hubble Infrared Pure Parallel Imaging Extragalactic Survey (HIPPIES; Yan et al. 2011). The pure-parallel observations provide completely independent, uncorrelated observations that reduce the uncertainty due to cosmic variance from ≳ 20% to &lt; 1%, thus providing an ideal complement to similar-depth surveys in a single pointing (Trenti &amp; Stiavelli 2008; Bradley et al. 2012; Trenti et al. 2012; Schmidt et al. 2014; Trapp et al. 2022).

Despite the wealth of data available, the density of UV-bright galaxies at early cosmic times is illconstrained by HST alone. The limitation arises because at z &gt; 8 only a few HST filters (F105W, F140W, and F160W hereafter) sample the wavelength range redward of the λ rest = 1216 ˚ LymanA α line. Some of the candidates are even detected in only one filter (e.g., Coe et al. 2013; Oesch et al. 2014; Finkelstein et al. 2022). The limited wavelength range available with HST makes some degree of contamination by lower redshift interlopers unavoidable. Frequent interlopers are brown dwarfs, that share a similar ∼ 1 -2 µ m color-color space given their low temperatures, and z ∼ 1 -3 galaxies with a strong rest-frame 4000 ˚ Balmer-break caused by the acA cumulation of absorption lines from ionized metals and that can be confused for the Lyman-break of z = 7 -10 galaxies. To accurately constrain the rest-UV luminosity function at z &gt; 7, it is crucial to confirm the highredshift nature of the galaxies, which was extremely dif- ficult prior to JWST (e.g., Livermore et al. 2018; Mason et al. 2019; Larson et al. 2022).

Within this context, studies of the UVLF from pureparallel programs hinted at an excess of bright ( M UV &lt; -21) galaxies with respect to those found in legacy surveys or extrapolated by fitting a Schechter functions or a double power law to the more abundant fainter galaxies (Bernard et al. 2016; Calvi et al. 2016; Morishita et al. 2018; Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2020; Leethochawalit et al. 2023; Bagley et al. 2024a). These results favored a smooth evolution of the UVLF at the bright end (e.g. McLeod et al. 2015; Finkelstein 2016; Finkelstein et al. 2022; McLeod et al. 2016) compared to a rapid decline suggested by other studies (e.g. Oesch et al. 2013, 2014; Bouwens et al. 2015, 2016; Oesch et al. 2018; Bouwens et al. 2019, 2021; Bowler et al. 2020). However, prior to JWST it was not possible to determine whether this 'bright excess' was real or the results of larger contamination from lower redshift interloper than estimated. As a result, consensus on the rest-UV luminosity functions at z &gt; 8 and the physical processes in early galaxy formation remained elusive.

The unparalleled sensitivity and resolution of JWST to find high-redshift galaxies with the Near-Infrared Camera NIRCam (0.6 - 5 µ m) is revolutionizing the study of the rest-UV luminosity function. While JWST is not optimized to conduct wide-field surveys, it has targeted previous HST legacy fields with NIRCam to look for new UV-bright, high-redshift galaxies. Certain fields provide deep imaging to improve sample purity such as the GLASS-JWST Early Release Science (Treu et al. 2022), the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES; Eisenstein et al. 2023), the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science field (CEERS; Finkelstein et al. 2023), the First Reionization Epoch Spectroscopically Complete Observations (Oesch et al. 2023), the Prime Extragalactic Areas for Reionization and Lensing Science (PEARLS; Windhorst et al. 2023), the Next Generation Deep Extragalactic Exploratory Public survey (NGDEEP; Bagley et al. 2024b), and the Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research (PRIMER; PI: Dunlop). Other programs offer a larger search field to reduce the effects of cosmic variance, although with the caveat of surveying shallower imaging and risking a higher contamination fraction, are the COSMOS-Web (Casey et al. 2023) program, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron ( JWST Cy1 PIs: Williams &amp; Oesch), and Cosmic Beacons - A NIRCam Pure-Parallel Imaging Survey of Galaxies Across the Universe ( JWST Cy2 PI: Morishita).

These JWST surveys have not only improved the purity of galaxy catalogs at z = 7 -10 by virtue of the

longer wavelength coverage, but have explored for the first time z ≳ 10 galaxies to study the evolution of the UV luminosity function (e.g., Bouwens et al. 2023a,b; Donnan et al. 2023, 2024; Finkelstein et al. 2023; Leung et al. 2023; Adams et al. 2024; Casey et al. 2024; Harikane et al. 2024a,b). However, the great majority of these JWST UV luminosity functions are constructed from catalogs of photometrically selected galaxies and can be contaminated by lower-redshift sources. The true power of JWST lies in targeted follow-up for redshift confirmation and source characterization of UVluminous galaxies (e.g., Arrabal Haro et al. 2023; Carniani et al. 2024; Castellano et al. 2024; Roberts-Borsani et al. 2024a). The Near-Infrared Spectrograph NIRSpec (0.6-5 µ m) can effectively distinguish the z ≳ 7 galaxies from lower-redshift interlopers.

In this study, we leverage NIRSpec observations from the BoRGJWST survey (Roberts-Borsani et al. 2024b) that confirm 11 galaxies at z = 7 -10 that were previously selected from the HST surveys SuperBoRG, BoRG, HIPPIES, and WISP (Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2020; Morishita 2021; Bagley et al. 2024a). This is the largest pure-parallel sample yet analyzed that comprises some of the brightest galaxies at these redshifts. As we will show, our studies confirm that the bright excess found by HST parallel program is confirmed and not due to higher contamination than expected. The confirmation of the excess reduces the amount of evolution required to match the abundance of bright galaxies found by JWST at higher redshift. Furthermore, we find that the stellar mass correlates with UV luminosity, albeit with a large scatter, consistent with stochastic early star formation.

This paper is organized as follows. In § 2, we present the bright end of the rest-frame ultraviolet luminosity function (UVLF) from our BoRGJWST survey, and compare them to other studies from observations in § 3. We further compare our results to theoretical models with different recipes of physical processes in galaxies that build up the UVLF § 4. We discuss the process for estimating the stellar masses of the galaxies and the mass-to-light ratio relation in § 5. Finally, the summary and implications of our findings are discussed in § 6. Throughout this work we use the cosmology according to H = 70 km s 0 -1 Mpc -1 , Ω M = 0.3, and Ω Λ = 0.7 and a Chabrier (2003) initial mass function (IMF). All magnitudes are given in the AB system.

## 2. THE z ∼ 8 AND z ∼ 9 UVLFs FROM INDEPENDENT SIGHT LINES

We use data from the BoRGJWST survey -the combination of JWST Cycle 1 programs GO 1747 (PI: Roberts-Borsani) and GO 2426 (Co-PIs: Bagley and

Table 1. UV luminosity functions for BoRG-JWST

| M UV             | N. confirmed     | ϕ                         | V eff            |
|------------------|------------------|---------------------------|------------------|
| GO 1747 ( z ∼ 8) | GO 1747 ( z ∼ 8) | GO 1747 ( z ∼ 8)          | GO 1747 ( z ∼ 8) |
| - 23 . 0         | 0                | < 2 . 4096 ∗              | 152.810          |
| - 22 . 5         | 0                | 1.6672 ± 0.929            | 153.185          |
| - 22 . 0         | 0                | 5.2094 ± 1.717            | 143.166          |
| - 21 . 5         | 4                | 24.773 ± 4.372            | 75.659           |
| - 21 . 0         | 1                | 16.535 ± 4.795            | 12.732           |
| - 20 . 5         | 1                | 244.90 ± 139.2            | 0.817            |
| GO 2426 ( z ∼ 8) | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 8) | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 8)          | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 8) |
| - 23 . 0         | 0                | 5.7067 +5 . 489 - 3 . 282 | 29.364           |
| - 22 . 0         | 1                | 7.5089 +6 . 354 - 4 . 008 | 27.604           |
| - 21 . 0         | 2                | 114.84 +56 . 24 - 42 . 53 | 4.654            |
| - 20 . 0         | 0                | 398.24 +273 . 4 - 271 . 3 | 0.264            |
| GO 2426 ( z ∼ 9) | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 9) | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 9)          | GO 2426 ( z ∼ 9) |
| - 23 . 0         | 0                | 0.4627 +9 . 347 - 0 . 363 | 65.471           |
| - 22 . 0         | 0                | 2.5390 +7 . 106 - 2 . 439 | 45.811           |
| - 21 . 0         | 1                | 21.79 +6 . 166 - 12 . 08  | 9.127            |
| - 20 . 0         | 1                | 224.4 +148 . 2 - 87 . 79  | 0.417            |

Note -These number density values are plotted in Figure 2. Column 1 presents the M UV bins, individual values for each galaxy are reported in Table 2. Column 2 has the number of galaxies confirmed with NIRSpec in each M UV bin. Column 3 is the calculated number density with 68% interval uncertainties. Column 4 is the effective volume as calculated in L23 and RR20, respectively.

∗ 1 σ errors from Gehrels 1986.

Rojas-Ruiz) - to re-calculate the z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9 galaxy UVLFs previously derived using HST imaging alone by Rojas-Ruiz et al. (2020) and Leethochawalit et al. (2023) (hereafter RR20 and L23, respectively). Specifically, we employ the redshifts and UV absolute magnitudes of the 11 confirmed z = 7 -9 sources from Table 1 of RobertsBorsani et al. (2024b, hereafter RB24) resulting from NIRSpec observations over eight independent fields, and the non-targeted photometric candidates but part of the UVLFs from RR20 and L23. For consistency, we adopt the redshift bin division of RR20, namely 7 0 . &lt; z ≤ 8 4 . and 8 4 . &lt; z &lt; 10 for the z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9 UVLFs, respectively. Below we describe the UVLF calculations for the corresponding datasets of the BoRGJWST survey. For reference, in addition to providing our best estimates of the UVLF, we also present the hard lower limits on the number densities obtained by counting only spectroscopically confirmed galaxies, divided by the full

survey volume. We note that these are very conservative because our spectroscopic follow-up was restricted to a subset of less than half of the photometric candidates (Roberts-Borsani et al. 2024b).

## 2.1. UVLF Calculation for GO 2426

The GO 2426 program selected z ∼ 8 -10 galaxies for spectroscopic follow up on the basis of a photoz analysis of pure-parallel HST WFC3 imaging using the parent sample from RR20 and the similarly-derived sample from Bagley et al. (2024a). Two sources observed in this program were inconclusive (see RB24) and pertained to the sample of Bagley et al. (2024a). Since we do not use these sources, we simply update the UVLFs of RR20 now including three confirmed galaxies at z ∼ 8, and two confirmations at z ∼ 9.

From this program, an additional z ∼ 8 candidate remains scheduled for observations in late 2024. It is worth noting that in this redshift bin we include par0956+2847 169-neigh, a newly-identified bright galaxy ( z = 8 205, . M UV = -21 45 . ± 0 09) . in close separation ( ∼ 0 63, or . ′′ ∼ 2.9 kpc) of the main target and confirmed galaxy par0956+2847 169 ( z = 8 230, . M UV = -22 34 . ± 0 06). . The relative line of sight velocity v r = 812 km s -1 suggests that these galaxies are gravitationally bound and likely a merger. A good cautionary tale for interpreting the bright end of the luminosity function (see examples by Bowler et al. 2017, Dalmasso et al. 2024, Duan et al. 2024, and Adamo et al. 2024): counting mergers as a single object, or the two sources separately may affect the results. Future observations should focus on velocity dispersion and mass estimates to confirm whether these galaxies are dynamically interacting, providing insights into their eventual clustering status. For this study, we treat them as distinct objects.

Furthermore, galaxy par0953+5153 1777, previously included in the z ∼ 8 bin owing to its photometric redshift ( z phot = 8 14, see RR20), is now confirmed to be-. long to the higher z ∼ 9 bin with z spec = 8 440 and . M UV = -20 44 . ± 0 41. . This is also the only galaxy from the BoRGJWST survey which belongs to the M UV = -20 bin, for which a number density was not previously reported in RR20.

Given the shifts between redshift and magnitude bins for a number of the sources from the 2426 program, we opt to re-derive the z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9 UVLFs. We follow a similar methodology to RR20 and perform a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using the emcee Python package (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013). To calculate the UVLF values and their associated uncertainties, we follow the method described in Finkelstein et al.

(2015) using the Poisson likelihood statistics:

$$\text{to a} ^ { \prime } \quad & \overset { \prime } { C } ^ { 2 } ( \varphi ) = - 2 \ln L ( \varphi ) & ( 1 ) \\ C ^ { 2 } ( \varphi ) = 2 \sum _ { i } \left ( N _ { \text{model}, i } - N _ { \text{obs}, i } + N _ { \text{obs}, i } \ln \left ( \frac { N _ { \text{obs}, i } } { N _ { \text{model}, i } } \right ) \right ) \\ & \overset { \prime } { \, } \\ & \overset { \, \, \,$$

where C 2 ( φ ) is the goodness-of-fit statistic and L φ ( ) is the likelihood that the expected number of galaxies ( N model ) matches the observed number ( N obs ).

In each step of the chain, we use the absolute magnitudes reported in RB24 for each galaxy confirmed from RR20. For each galaxy not targeted in GO 2426, we draw an absolute magnitude from a list of 1,000 values randomly chosen from the cumulative distribution function of their photometric redshift probability ( P z ( ) vs. z ) at z &gt; 7. This procedure allows galaxies to shift magnitude at a frequency proportional to the uncertainties in M UV . To account for empirical contamination, we calculate the fraction of sources from the BoRGJWST survey that are confirmed to be at lower redshift ( z ≲ 3) relative to the total number of galaxies observed in each M UV bin. The resulting fractions are 1, 0.6, 0.1, and 0.5 for the M UV bins of width 1.0 centered at -23 through -20, respectively. We apply these fractions to adjust the counts of photometric objects not targeted in this survey through the MCMC. Lastly, we calculate the number densities by taking the median of the posterior distribution (from 10 5 steps additional to 10 6 burn-in steps) and their uncertainties from the 68% confidence interval, and report them in Table 1. In Figure 2, we show these updated number densities (filled orange circles) that largely agree within uncertainties to the photometric UVLF in RR20 (light pink squares), but at M UV = -21 that suffers from low-number statistics having doubled in number density compared to RR20. We plot the number densities offset from the central absolute magnitude bin for clarity.

## 2.2. UVLF Calculation for GO 1747

The z ∼ 8 UVLF presented in L23 was derived based on the HST sample of color- and photoz selected sources from Roberts-Borsani et al. (2022), the latter of which served as the parent sample for the GO 1747 program. Six of the primary z &gt; 7 targets from that program were confirmed (see Table 1 of RB24), and an additional galaxy candidate remains scheduled for observations in late 2024. To re-calculate the UVLF at z ∼ 8 from this program, we follow the methodology described by L23 where the estimated contamination probability of a true high-z galaxy is given by the following equation:

$$P _ { \text{high-} z } = P _ { \text{gal} } \times ( 1 - \overline { N } _ { \text{interlopers} } ) \quad \ \ ( 3 )$$

Figure 1. Left: The HST image in the F160W filter of the primary target galaxy par0956+2847 169 ( z = 8 230, orange) and . the newly identified neighboring galaxy par0956+2847 169-neigh ( z = 8 205, magenta). . The JWST -NIRSpec slit and dithers are shown in blue at a position angle PA = 55.07 ◦ . Both galaxies are located at close separation of ∼ 0 63 equivalent to . ′′ ∼ 2.9 kpc and a relative line of sight velocity of v r = 812 km s -1 suggesting a merging system. Right: The NIRSpec spectra of both galaxies, highlighting all the rest-frame optical emission lines identified in grey, including strong Lyα . The HST photometry is also included as blue squares.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00843v1-figure-c365bd63-e8eb-48db-af83-b4cc809a6e09.jpg)

where P gal is the probability that the source is not a brown dwarf, and N interlopers is the estimated number of interlopers (lower-redshift galaxy) in a BoRG field (see Table 2 in L23). In our approach to update the UVLF, we replace P high -z of the sources observed with NIRSpec with the actual measured values (0 for confirmed interlopers, and 1 for confirmed high-z galaxies).

We also use the spectroscopic sample to evaluate the performance of our estimated contamination probability based on the photometry. The average probability of the contamination from the NIRSpec targets ( P spec ) is 0.55, while the average probability from photometric candidates in L23 ( P L 23 ) is 0.74 +0 14 . -0 23 . . These values are consistent within 1 σ with the spectroscopic measurement. To be conservative, for the galaxies that were not targeted for spectroscopic follow up, we adjust the contamination probability estimates by rescaling them by the factor needed to match exactly the average contam- ination of the spectroscopic sample:

$$P _ { \text{high-} z } = P _ { \text{gal} } \times \frac { \overline { P } _ { \text{spec} } } { \overline { P } _ { L 2 3 } } \, \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 4 )$$

The correction factor is small (0.74) and does not affect our conclusions in any way.

To derive the updated UVLF, we perform 100 Monte Carlo iterations based on the L23 method. This involves drawing galaxies first according to the contamination probability ( P high -z ) and then from the interloper probability ( P = e -N interloper ). The resulting number densities and volumes are presented in Table 1, and in the left panel of Figure 2 as filled orange diamonds, while the L23 number densities are shown as black squares.

## 3. COMPARISON TO THE LITERATURE

Our UVLFs are more robust to cosmic variance due to the nature of independent sight line observations and, particularly at z ∼ 8, present an excess of galaxies at the

Figure 2. Rest-frame UV luminosity functions at z ∼ 8 (left) and z ∼ 9 (right) from the BoRGJWST survey program GO 1747 (orange diamonds) and GO 2426 (orange circles). We offset the number densities from the center of each M UV bin for clarity. As a reference, we also provide the conservative hard lower limits on the number densities obtained by counting only spectroscopically confirmed galaxies, divided by the full survey volume. We include for comparison results based on previous HST BoRG surveys (Leethochawalit et al. 2023; Morishita et al. 2018; Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2020; Bagley et al. 2024a), large ground-based surveys (UltraVISTA) (Bowler et al. 2020), JWST photometric surveys (Bouwens et al. 2023a,b; Donnan et al. 2023, 2024; Finkelstein et al. 2023; Adams et al. 2024) and JWST -spectroscopic results from Harikane et al. (2024b) When available, the fitted Schechter UVLFs are shown as solid lines, while the double-power-law (DPL) are presented as dotted lines. Our program (orange data) provide crucial bright-end constraints, especially at z ∼ 8 where previous JWST results on legacy fields did not present statistically significant number of the brightest galaxies at M UV &lt; -21 0. .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00843v1-figure-f69659ed-f086-4b90-b4c4-9ca671668880.jpg)

bright-end compared to JWST photometry as current surveys do not seem to sample the bright end well. We detail this comparison to the literature and implications of our results below.

lated fits from JWST results in Bouwens et al. (2023a), and Adams et al. (2024).

In Figure 2, we show the UVLFs derived here (orange diamonds for GO 1747 and orange circles for GO 2426) and show they are largely consistent in the z ∼ 8 bin, with a minor discrepancy at M UV = -21 that could be explained by the low number statistics (one galaxy confirmed from GO 1747 compared to two galaxies from GO 2426). We compare our UVLFs to those previously derived from the HST SuperBoRG, BoRG and WISP pure-parallel surveys (Morishita et al. 2018; Rojas-Ruiz et al. 2020; Leethochawalit et al. 2023; Bagley et al. 2024a) and note that they are in good agreement at both redshift bins.

We also compare our results to the recent JWST /NIRCam UVLFs at z ∼ 8 -9. At z ∼ 8, our number densities are consistent at the faint-end and up to M UV ≳ -21 with Bouwens et al. (2023a), and Adams et al. (2024). At brighter magnitudes, we are in nice agreement with the lower limits from spectroscopically confirmed galaxies in Harikane et al. (2024b). However, for the photometrically-based samples, the discrepancy is considerably higher compared to the UVLF extrapo-

Our galaxy number densities at z ∼ 8 are nearly an order of magnitude higher at (M UV ≲ -22) compared to the ground-based results from Bowler et al. (2020). Even our strict lower limits, based solely on spectroscopic confirmations (white symbols in Figure 2), remain significantly higher. The ground-based survey by Bowler et al. (2020) covered a substantially larger area of ∼ 6 deg 2 compared to the combined area of the parent programs for BoRGJWST at z ∼ 8, which is ∼ 0 4 deg . . 2 While the larger area suggests lower cosmic variance, the BoRGJWST survey's observations from independent sight lines ensure a robust representation of galaxies at these redshifts. Possible explanations for the discrepancy may include the inherent challenges of groundbased observations in detecting significant numbers of galaxies at these bright magnitudes, or the use of more conservative selection methods to avoid contamination. This also suggests that our NIRSpec observations may capture a population of luminous galaxies not fully accounted for in previous studies.

At z ∼ 9, our measured number densities at the bright-end appear more consistent with other studies making use of JWST imaging (Bouwens et al. 2023b; Donnan et al. 2023, 2024; Finkelstein et al. 2023; Adams

Figure 3. Comparison of the UVLFs at z ∼ 8 (left) and z ∼ 9 (right) from the BoRGJWST survey to theoretical models. We include models from Yung et al. (2019, 2024), Mason et al. (2023), Shen et al. (2023, 2024), Sun et al. (2023), Cueto et al. (2024), Gelli et al. (2024), and Jones et al. (2024), Lu et al. (2024). The solid (dotted) lines show the models that (do not) include dust attenuation.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00843v1-figure-3ff499bc-8657-46ad-a25b-a2bd37f92054.jpg)

et al. 2024). In particular, our results are in good agreement with the spectroscopic UVLF (lower limits and data point) from Harikane et al. (2024b). Those results, derived from NIRCam imaging and spectroscopic measurements over multiple deep fields and lensing clusters (CEERS, GLASS-JWST, SMACS0723, MACS0647, GOODS-North, GOODS-South, MACS1149), imply a higher abundance of bright galaxies at the considered redshifts, more consistent with predictions from HST pure-parallel surveys that benefit from reduced cosmic variance effects. This suggests that earlier studies may have underrepresented the abundance of the most luminous galaxies, aligning better with models proposing stochastic star formation processes. To fully understand the physical processes responsible for our observed number densities of these bright galaxies, in the next Section we compare to UVLFs from different analytical studies and simulations.

Finally, while the BoRGJWST spectra show no evidence for strong broad-line features characteristic of Type 1 AGN (see Section 4.3 in RB24), we nonetheless compare our results to the AGN UVLF determined by Finkelstein &amp; Bagley (2022, hereafter FB22), using space- and ground-based surveys predating the JWST era. The grey and blue shaded regions in Figure 2 show the galaxy and AGN luminosity functions, respectively, for both of our redshift bins. At the bright end (M UV &lt; -21) the number densities from our BoRGJWST work are at the upper end of the uncertainty envelope of FB22 in both redshift bins. Contamination by AGN is expected to be minimal at these bright magnitudes, based on the FB22 luminosity function. However, we caution that the FB22 AGN UVLF is constrained mostly by z = 3 -6 sources and thus the extrapolation to z ∼ 8 is forced to be smooth. The very small contribution of AGN to the total UVLF in FB22 is consistent with the lack of strong AGN features seen in our NIRSpec spectra.

## 4. COMPARISON TO THEORETICAL MODELS

Here we compare our derived UVLFs from BoRGJWST to the prediction of various theoretical models and simulations. Figure 3 shows our observations compared to the models discussed below.

The observed UVLF from BoRGJWST at z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9 agree with the analytical model by Mason et al. (2023) that consider the halo formation and variations in star formation efficiency with dust attenuation more favorably than without dust. This is similarly observed with the analytical models by Yung et al. (2019) (including dust attenuation) and Yung et al. (2024) (no dust). Shen et al. (2023) investigates the impact of UV radiation variations in star formation efficiency on the UVLF, highlighting the need for models to include stochastic star formation events. Our observations are best explained in both redshift bins with a UV scatter σ UV = 1 0 . -2 0 (grey shaded region). Shen et al. (2024) . further investigates the enhanced UV variability dependent on halo mass; we show the relation for σ UV = 0 75 . at M halo ∼ 10 10 5 . M ⊙ that nicely agree with our observations, more favorably for the conservative lower limits from spectroscopically confirmed galaxies alone. The bursty star formation models from Sun et al. (2023); Gelli et al. (2024) further agrees with our observations

at both redshift bins. Cueto et al. (2024) incorporates different star formation histories and initial mass functions (IMFs) following a Salpeter IMF (Salpeter 1955) and an evolving IMF. For these cases, the models that do not include dust attenuation better agree with our observations.

We also compare to the SIMBA-EoR simulations using the 50 Mpc/h resolution and including dust attenuation (Jones et al. 2024). Although these simulations do not predict the UVLF at the bright-end (M UV &lt; -20) at z ∼ 8 -9, the prediction at dimmer magnitudes would suggest an underestimation to our data if the trend continues at brighter magnitudes. Finally, we compare to the Durham semi-analytic galaxy formation model 'GALFORM' by Lu et al. (2024) that explore different scenarios of dust attenuation based on metallicity ( Z ) and opacity ( τ ). They also explore a Kennicut IMF (Kennicutt 1983) and a top-heavy IMF model. The GALFORM models present a rapid evolution of the UVLF and understimate our results at the bright end (M UV &lt; -21).

To further explore why our UVLFs agree better with some models with or without dust, one could examine the β UV slopes. For our BoRGJWST sample of galaxies, we find that the UV continuum slopes range from -2 5 . &lt; β UV &lt; -1 63 (see Table 1 in RB24). This range . of slopes is sufficiently blue, indicating low dust content. Consequently, this range of β values does not resolve the ambiguity with the theoretical models.

Comparing our BoRGJWST UVLFs at z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9 to theoretical models highlights the importance of measuring the bright end in order to differentiate the physical process driving galaxy evolution in the early universe. Many of the model predictions agree with the measurements at M UV ∼ -20 but fall short for brighter galaxies. Although there are multiple ways to match the bright end of the UVLF, it seems that a large scatter in UV luminosity for a given halo mass (resulting, e.g, from stochastic bursts of star formation) could do the job. As we shall see in the next Section, this scenario is qualitatively consistent with the large scatter in the observed stellar mass-to-light ratio.

## 5. STELLAR MASS-TO-LIGHT RATIO

The stellar mass-to-light ratio is a powerful diagnostic of galaxy formation and evolution, and a way to connect the luminosity to the stellar mass function and the underlying dark matter halo mass function (e.g. Behroozi &amp; Silk 2018; Boylan-Kolchin 2023; Chworowsky et al. 2023).

Prior to JWST , stellar masses at z &gt; 7 were highly uncertain owing to the limited wavelength coverage of

Table 2. Stellar Masses for BoRG-JWST

| ID                     |     z | M UV          | log M ∗                |
|------------------------|-------|---------------|------------------------|
| 1747 1081              | 7.838 | -21.59 ± 0.14 | 10.05 +0 . 03 - 0 . 32 |
| par0956+2847 169       | 8.23  | -22.34 ± 0.06 | 10.02 +0 . 05 - 0 . 04 |
| par0953+5153 1777      | 8.44  | -20.44 ± 0.41 | 9.68 +0 . 25 - 0 . 10  |
| par0956+2847 169-neigh | 8.205 | -21.45 ± 0.09 | 9.63 +0 . 12 - 0 . 04  |
| par0953+5153 1655      | 8.03  | -20.68 ± 0.19 | 9.48 +0 . 17 - 0 . 24  |
| 1747 1425              | 7.553 | -21.38 ± 0.06 | 9.44 +0 . 04 - 0 . 04  |
| par0956+2847 1130      | 8.49  | -20.69 ± 0.22 | 9.37 +0 . 13 - 0 . 13  |
| 1747 199               | 8.316 | -21.28 ± 0.17 | 9.20 +0 . 08 - 0 . 03  |
| 1747 732               | 8.226 | -21.47 ± 0.15 | 9.18 +0 . 44 - 0 . 12  |
| 1747 902               | 7.905 | -21.10 ± 0.19 | 9.02 +0 . 14 - 0 . 04  |
| 1747 817               | 7.556 | -20.74 ± 0.13 | 8.54 +0 . 03 - 0 . 03  |

Note -The redshift z and M UV values are from RB24. The stellar masses log(M ∗ ) that we calculate are shown in Figure 4.

HST and the limited sensitivity of Spitzer . JWST -NIRCam moved the field forward by enabling the detection of rest frame optical colors, thus reducing the overall uncertainty on stellar masses. However, purely photometric samples still suffer from uncertainty, due to possible contamination by lower redshift interlopers, and the effects of strong emission lines on broad band photometry.

To overcome these limitations we use our NIRSpec spectra to fit for the spectral energy distribution (SED). By studying these spectral features, one can fix the redshift and break some of the degeneracies in the inferred properties such as stellar ages, metallicities, and star formation histories, which are essential for accurate stellar mass calculations (e.g., Tacchella et al. 2022; Santini et al. 2023; Whitler et al. 2023; Morishita et al. 2024; Weibel et al. 2024).

We infer the spectral energy distribution (SED) of individual galaxies by fitting PRISM spectra using the SED modeling code gsf (ver1.85; Morishita et al. 2019). gsf adopts non-parametirc star formation histories (SFH) and determines an optimal combination of stellar and interstellar medium (ISM) templates among the template library. For this study, we generate templates of different ages, [10, 30, 100, 300, 1000] Myrs, and metallicities log Z /Z ∗ ⊙ ∈ -[ 2 0] at an increment of , 0.1 by using fsps (Conroy et al. 2009; Foreman-Mackey et al. 2014). A nebular component (emission lines and continuum), which is characterized by an ionization parameter log U ∈ -[ 3 , -1] is also generated by fsps (see also Byler et al. 2017) and added to the template after

Figure 4. The stellar mass-to-light ratio (M/L) relation for the BoRGJWST galaxies shown as circles color-coded based on the galaxy's UV continuum slope β UV . We fit our data jointly with stellar masses from Morishita et al. (2024) (grey squares) that are also derived from JWST observations and obtain the relation in red where the darker shaded region represents the 68% interval errors and the lighter shaded area correspond to the intrinsic scatter. We find that our relation is comparable to other M/L relations from previous HST works as in Song et al. (2016); Bhatawdekar et al. (2019); Kikuchihara et al. (2020); Stefanon et al. (2021). For comparison, we also add the stellar masses from Santini et al. (2023) (green squares) using JWST NIRCam, and Katz et al. (2023) (blue squares) from the SPHINX 20 simulations.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00843v1-figure-e846e85a-55c7-4164-88e9-137352056cd3.jpg)

multiplication by an amplitude parameter. Dust attenuation and metallicity of the stellar templates are treated as free parameters during the fit, whereas the metallicity of the nebular component is synchronized with the metallicity of the stellar component during the fitting process. The NIRSpec PRISM spectra are scaled to the broad band fluxes (F160W, and F125W and/or F140W when available). To avoid double counting the information, we do not include broad band fluxes in the SED fitting processes.

2020; Stefanon et al. 2021). To extend the dynamic range of our sample to fit this relation, our data is combined with the JWST NIRCam-based photometric sample from Morishita et al. (2024), that derived the stellar masses similarly through SED fitting with gsf . We follow a Bayesian approach to linear regression as outlined in Kelly (2007) using the Python package linmix , and show our fit in Figure 4.

The calculated galaxy stellar masses (log M ∗ ) from this BoRGJWST program are presented in Table 2. The relationship between log M ∗ and M UV has been previously well described as a linear trend (e.g. Song et al. 2016; Bhatawdekar et al. 2019; Kikuchihara et al.

A linear log-log relation is a good description of the data over almost three orders of magnitude in stellar mass, albeit with large scatter. The best-fit values for this relation are a slope of -0 34 . ± 0 05, with normal-. ization (stellar mass at M UV = 0) of 1 95 . ± 0 05, . and an intrinsic scatter of σ = 0 45. . This corresponds to an almost linear relation between stellar mass and UV lu-

minosity: M ∗ ∝ L 0 85 . ± 0 12 . UV . In Figure 4, we also add for reference the stellar masses from Santini et al. (2023) using JWST -NIRCam photometry, and recent stellar mass calculations using the SPHINX 20 (Rosdahl et al. 2022) simulations (Katz et al. 2023). These simulations are validated against the observed photometric data on the first ∼ two years of JWST .

We note that the most massive galaxies in our sample have stellar masses larger than 10 10 M ⊙ . This indicates that these galaxies require a high efficiency of converting gas into stars (approximately 0.2) given the abundance of dark matter halos at these redshifts and standard cosmological parameters Xiao et al. (2023). This high baryon star formation efficiency assumes that the IMF remains unchanged. However, if the IMF were to be more top-heavy than typically assumed, the baryon conversion efficiency could be lower (e.g. van Dokkum &amp; Conroy 2024). This potential variation in the IMF could be listed as an alternative explanation for the high efficiency observed (e.g. Dekel et al. 2023).

In Figure 4 we color-code the stellar masses (log M ∗ ) based on the galaxy's UV continuum slopes ( β UV ) from Table 1 in RB24. The most massive galaxy has the reddest β slope, consistent with the hypothesis that it has relatively old and/or dust obscured stellar population. In contrast, galaxy par0956+2847 169-neigh has the bluest slope from this sample β UV = -2 5 suggest-. ing younger stellar populations or less dust and it is yet substantially massive (log M ∗ = 9 63 . +0 12 . -0 04 . ). Such large mass could be related to dust exchange with its neighboring galaxy and suspected merger par0956+2847 169, that is among the most massive from this sample with log M ∗ = 10 02 . +0 05 . -0 04 . but redder β UV = -2 02 . slope. Nevertheless, the β UV slopes from this sample are conservative compared to bluer β UV ∼ -3 slopes from other galaxies at similar redshifts as in Morishita et al. (2024). A cautionary note is that, since we use a non-parametric SFH, the masses of the low-mass blue galaxies might be underestimated if their recent SFR outshines the residual light from previous star formation episodes (Whitler et al. 2023; Narayanan et al. 2024).

In general, our spectroscopically confirmed z ∼ 8 -9 galaxies exhibit a similar linear M/L relation with the most UV luminous galaxies also having higher masses, albeit with ∼ 0 5 dex of scatter. . The large scatter and spread in β UV slopes are consistent with a broad range of stellar ages and dust attenuation in the bright population. Although larger samples are needed to reach firm conclusions, this first study shows how considering the demographics with the individual properties of galaxies may help disentangle the interplay of dust, metallicity, IMF and star formation histories in the early universe.

## 6. SUMMARY

We studied the number density and stellar mass-tolight ratio of UV-bright galaxies at z &gt; 7 from BoRGJWST , the largest spectroscopically confirmed sample of galaxies from pure-parallel surveys. We used NIRSpec to confirm 11 galaxies at z = 7 -9 present in eight independent sight lines (Roberts-Borsani et al. 2024b). We calculated the rest-frame UV luminosity function (UVLF) at z ∼ 8 and z ∼ 9. Particularly at z ∼ 8, the abundance of bright galaxies is confirmed to be higher in parallel fields than that inferred by HST studies in legacy fields. The spectroscopic nature of this study shows that the higher abundance is not due to an anomalously large number of contaminants in the parallel fields, but more likely by cosmic variance affecting the legacy fields.

Compared to recent JWST studies (Bouwens et al. 2023b; Donnan et al. 2023; Adams et al. 2024), and ground-base large survey from Bowler et al. (2020), our z ∼ 8 UVLF is notably higher at the bright end (M UV ≲ -21). We are consistent with available spectroscopic confirmations from Harikane et al. (2024a,b). At z ∼ 9, our UVLF agrees with other JWST photometric findings, which survey a much smaller volume, while there is much scatter. The AGN contamination on the galaxy UVLF does not appear to be significant for either redshift bin when comparing to galaxy- and AGN- UVLF studies by Finkelstein &amp; Bagley (2022), that is the only reference thus far at these redshifts and is based on HST data.

Our study takes us closer to pinning down the evolution of the bright end of the UVLF, which is an important diagnostic of galaxy formation and evolution, although further studies are necessary. Therefore, it is imperative to exploit the resources from JWST to perform spectroscopic follow-up of UV-bright galaxies at these somewhat less-explored redshifts compared to the current focus of the community at higher redshifts ( z &gt; 9). As illustrated by our work, targeting multiple lines of sight is crucial to minimize cosmic variance.

By comparing our measurements with a range of theoretical predictions we have illustrated the diagnostic power of the bright end of the luminosity function. Although the uncertainties are still large owing to the small number statistics, not all models match the observations. For example, models with large intrinsic scatter in UV luminosity at a given halo mass seem to do well at the bright end, consistent with the hypothesis of stochastic bursts of star formation.

We further analyzed the stellar mass-to-light ratio (M/L) to provide insights into modeling the growth and evolution of galaxies as they turn their stellar mass into

light. By combining our data of stellar masses (log M ) with the ∗ JWST NIRCam-based photometric sample from Morishita et al. (2024), we find a linear relation between (log M ) and M ∗ UV , corresponding to an almost linear relation between stellar mass and UV luminosity of the form M ∗ ∝ L 0 85 . ± 0 12 . UV . The scatter around the relation is ∼ 0 5 dex in log . M ∗ . The large scatter is qualitatively consistent with the stochastic bursts of star formation suggested to reproduce the bright end of the galaxy UV luminosity function.

Our result is consistent with previous studies (e.g. Song et al. 2016; Bhatawdekar et al. 2019; Kikuchihara et al. 2020; Stefanon et al. 2021) but more robust because it is based on data reaching longer wavelengths. Our relation agrees with published JWST -photometric data (Santini et al. 2023) and (log M ∗ ) measurements from the SPHINX 20 simulations in Katz et al. (2023).

To further examine this trend, we showed that the more massive galaxies with ≳ 10 10 M /M ∗ ⊙ have redder UV continuum slopes ( β UV ) indicating older, dustier stellar populations and a high efficiency of gas conversion into stars, albeit with some scatter. Low-mass blue galaxies are subject to stellar mass underestimation due to the latest SFR outshining the older stellar populations (Whitler et al. 2023; Narayanan et al. 2024). Changes in the assumed IMF or star formation efficiency would lead to alternative interpretations of how early galaxies achieve high masses (Xiao et al. 2023; van Dokkum &amp; Conroy 2024; Dekel et al. 2023). Understanding these variations via detailed studies of individual galaxies in concert with their demographics, will help us better comprehend the processes governing early galaxy evolution and the formation of massive galaxies in the early universe. Future papers based on this BoRGJWST survey will present a detailed analysis of the individual spectra in terms of the galaxy's stellar populations, Lyα transmission, and intervening intergalactic medium.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank E. Cueto, V. Gelli and E. Jones, X. Shen, and G. Sun for sharing their data. We are grateful to A. Calabr´, M. Castellano, and P. Santini, for insightful o discussions and suggestions.

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 # 1747 and 2464. Funding from NASA through STScI awards JWST-GO-01747 and JWSTGO-02426 is gratefully acknowledged.

This research was funded in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [Grant number 210558]. CM acknowledges support by the VILLUM FONDEN under grant 37459 and the Carlsberg Foundation under grant CF22-1322. The Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN) is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation under grant DNRF140. MT acknowledges support by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), through project number CE170100013. MS acknowledgse support for this work under NASA grant 80NSSC22K1294.

The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation.

Facilities:

JWST

Software: Astropy (The Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013), emcee (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013), gsf (Morishita et al. 2019), Matplotlib (Hunter 2007), Numpy (Harris et al. 2020), SciPy (Virtanen et al. 2020)

## REFERENCES

```
<_SQL_>
```

```
<_FORTRAN_>
```

Bhatawdekar, R., Conselice, C. J., Margalef-Bentabol, B., &amp; Duncan, K. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3805

| Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G., Oesch, P., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 523, 1009                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bouwens, R. J., Stefanon, M., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 25                    |
| Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L133           |
| Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 34              |
| Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Labb´, e I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 67                     |
| Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47                     |
| Bouwens, R. J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 1036                |
| Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., & Crain, R. A. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2816                       |
| Bowler, R. A. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & McLeod, D. J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3612   |
| Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059            |
| Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nat Astron, 7, 731                                              |
| Bradley, L. D., Trenti, M., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 108                     |
| Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44             |
| Calvi, V., Trenti, M., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 120                         |
| Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D'Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, 2024arXiv240518485C              |
| Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31                |
| Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Shuntov, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 98                       |
| Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, 2024arXiv240310238C            |
| Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763                                                        |
| Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2023, 2023arXiv231114804C |
| Coe, D., Zitrin, A., Carrasco, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 32                             |
| Cueto, E. R., Hutter, A., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A138                         |
| Dalmasso, N., Calabr`, o A., Leethochawalit, N., et al. 2024, arXiv:2403.11428           |
| Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201   |
| Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011               |
| Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, 2024arXiv240303171D            |

| Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2024, arXiv:2403.11428                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv.2306.02465                            |
| Ellis, R. S., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2013, APJL, 763, L7                                |
| Finkelstein, S. L. 2016, PASA, 33, e037                                                               |
| Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, ApJ, 938, 25                                                |
| Finkelstein, S. L., Papovich, C., Salmon, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 164                              |
| Finkelstein, S. L., Ryan, R. E., Papovich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 71                              |
| Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., Song, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 52                                   |
| Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2023, 2023arXiv231104279F                  |
| Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASA, 125, 306                         |
| Foreman-Mackey, D., Sick, J., & Johnson, B. 2014                                                      |
| Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336                                                                       |
| Gelli, V., Mason, C., & Hayward, C. C. 2024, 2024arXiv240513108G                                      |
| Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35                              |
| Harikane, Y., Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 960, 56                                     |
| Harikane, Y., Inoue, A. K., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024b, 2024arXiv240618352H                           |
| Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357                     |
| Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, conference Name: Computing in Science Engineering                     |
| Jones, E., Smith, B., Dav´, e R., Narayanan, D., & Li, Q. 2024, 2024arXiv240206728J                   |
| Katz, H., Rosdahl, J., Kimm, T., et al. 2023, OJAp, 6, 44                                             |
| Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489                                                                     |
| Kikuchihara, S., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ,                                                |
| 893, 60                                                                                               |
| Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36                           |
| Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Hutchison, T. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 104                       |
| Leethochawalit, N., Roberts-Borsani, G., Morishita, T., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5454 |
| Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L46                        |
| Livermore, R. C., Trenti, M., Bradley, L. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, L17                              |

| Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97                                                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lu, S., Frenk, C. S., Bose, S., et al. 2024, 2024arXiv240602672L                                                      |
| Mason, C. A., Trenti, M., & Treu, T. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 497                                                            |
| Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3947                                                    |
| McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3812                                                  |
| McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3032                                            |
| Morishita, T., Trenti, M., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 150                                                  |
| Morishita, T., Abramson, L. E., Treu, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 141                                                  |
| Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9                                                  |
| Narayanan, D., Lower, S., Torrey, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 73                                                       |
| Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb´, e I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 105                     |
| Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2010, APJL, 709, L16                                         |
| Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 75                                           |
| Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 108                                          |
| Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864                                                |
| Roberts-Borsani, G., Morishita, T., Treu, T., Leethochawalit, N., & Trenti, M. 2022, ApJ, 927, 236                    |
| Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024a, 2024arXiv240307103                                          |
| Roberts-Borsani, G., Bagley, M., Rojas-Ruiz, S., et al. 2024b, arXiv:2407.17551 Robertson, B. E. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 121 |
| Rojas-Ruiz, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 146                                         |
| Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Katz, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2386                                                     |
| Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L27                                                  |
| Schmidt, K. B., Treu, T., Trenti, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 57                                                       |

| Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Kannan, R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3254             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Tacchella, S., & Naidu, R. P. 2024, 2024arXiv240615548S        |
| Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481         |
| Song, M., Finkelstein, S. L., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 5                                        |
| Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Labb´, e I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 29                                           |
| Sun, G., Faucher-Gigu`re, e C.-A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2023, APJL, 955, L35                                 |
| Tacchella, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 170                                      |
| The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33                      |
| Trapp, A. C., Furlanetto, S. R., & Yang, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4844                                             |
| Trenti, M., & Stiavelli, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 767                                                                |
| Trenti, M., Bradley, L. D., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, L39                                          |
| Trenti, M., Bradley, L. D., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 55                                           |
| Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110                                          |
| van Dokkum, P., & Conroy, C. 2024, 2024arXiv240706281V                                                         |
| Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, NatMe, 17, 261                                        |
| Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Barrufet, L., et al. 2024, 2024arXiv240308872W                                       |
| 519, 5859 2023,                                                                                                |
| Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Jansen, R. A., et al. AJ, 165, 13                                              |
| Xiao, M., Oesch, P., Elbaz, D., et al. 2023, 2023arXiv230902492X                                               |
| Yan, H., Yan, L., Zamojski, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJL, 728, L22                                                 |
| Yung, L. Y. A., Somerville, R. S., Finkelstein, S. L., Popping, G., & Dav´, e R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2983        |
| Yung, L. Y. A., Somerville, R. S., Finkelstein, S. L., Wilkins, S. M., & Gardner, J. P. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5929 |
Sofía Rojas-Ruiz Micaela B. Bagley Guido Roberts-Borsani Tommaso Treu Steven L. Finkelstein Takahiro Morishita Nicha Leethochawalit Charlotte Mason Eduardo Bañados Michele Trenti Massimo Stiavelli L. Y. Aaron Yung Pablo Arrabal Haro Rachel S. Somerville Christian Soto
The BoRG-$JWST$ Survey: Abundance and Mass-to-light Ratio of Luminous $z=7-9$ Galaxies from Independent Sight Lines with NIRSpec
We present new results on the rest-frame UV luminosity function (UVLF) and
stellar mass-to-light (M/L) ratio of bright (M$_{\rm UV}\lesssim-20$ mag)
spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies at $z=7-9$ derived from the BoRG-$JWST$
survey, a unique data set of NIRSpec prism follow up of $HST$-selected sources
from random-pointing imaging. By selecting galaxies from over 200 independent
sight lines, the survey minimizes cosmic variance ensuring a statistically
robust sample of the bright-galaxy population during the epoch of reionization.
The data is used to constrain, for the first time, the bright end of the UVLF
at $z=7-9$ from spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies over eight independent
fields. We find that the bright end of the UVLF is higher than found using
imaging over $JWST$ legacy fields, suggesting the latter may be significantly
affected by cosmic variance, and thus reducing the tension with recent findings
from $JWST$ at $z>10$ and comparable to models invoking little dust attenuation
and bursty star formation. Additionally, we use the galaxies' $JWST$ spectra to
infer their stellar masses and M/L ratios relative to other $HST$ and $JWST$
studies. We show that the stellar mass scales almost linearly with UV
luminosity (M$_* \propto L_{\rm UV}^{0.85\pm0.12}$), albeit with large
($\sim0.5$ dex) intrinsic scatter, consistent with stochastic bursts of star
formation in early galaxy formation.