Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 126 references

[OII] emitters in MultiDark-Galaxies and DEEP2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Estimating [O II] luminosity from a galaxy's average star formation rate agrees with the full photoionisation calculation to within five percent for typical emitters, and the large-scale clustering of these galaxies is independent of the…

desk verdict Solid methods paper with a genuinely useful new result on average vs instantaneous SFR for [OII] mocks, and one untested extrapolation that should be fixed before the 5% claim goes general. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05626 v3 pith:4VHDGHOB submitted 2019-08-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

G. Favole (ESAC) , V. Gonzalez-Perez (Lancaster , Portsmouth) , A. Orsi (CEFCA) , D. Stoppacher (Madrid) , J. Comparat (MPE) , S. A. Cora (La Plata) , C. A. Vega-Martinez (La Plata)
show 9 more authors
A. R. H. Stevens (ICRAR) C. Maraston (Portsmouth) D. Croton (Swinburne) A. Knebe (Madrid) A. J. Benson (Carnegie) A. D. Montero-Dorta (Sao Paulo) N. Padilla (PUC) F. Prada (IAA) D. Thomas (Portsmouth)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords emissionlinegalaxies[OII]luminositysemi-analyticgalaxyformationmodelsstarrateclusteringfunctionhalooccupationdistributionDEEP2survey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether [O II] emission-line luminosities of model galaxies can be computed after the fact from time-averaged star formation rates, rather than the instantaneous rates that a standard nebular-emission code prefers. Using the one galaxy formation model that outputs both quantities, the authors show that substituting the average rate changes dust-attenuated [O II] luminosities by less than five percent for galaxies with L[OII] below about $10^{42}$.2 erg/s. They then test simple linear proxies for [O II] luminosity—star formation rate and rest-frame UV u- and g-band magnitudes—across three semi-analytic models of galaxy formation, and find that the clustering amplitude of [O II] emitters on scales above 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc is unchanged no matter which proxy is used. The practical consequence is that fast, cheap luminosity estimates are adequate for building mock catalogues and forecasting large-scale clustering for upcoming emission-line surveys, even though they are not accurate enough to predict luminosity functions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photoionisation-based mapping from star formation rate and cold-gas metallicity to [O II] luminosity, implemented in the public get_emlines code. In this prescription, $L(\lambda_j) = 1.37\times 10^{-12}\, Q_{H^0}\, F(\lambda_j,q,Z_{\rm cold})/F({\rm H}\alpha,q,Z_{\rm cold})$, where $Q_{H^0} \propto \mathrm{SFR}$ is the hydrogen-ionising photon rate and the flux ratio comes from a pre-computed grid of H II region models with ionisation parameter $q(Z) = q_0 (Z_{\rm cold}/Z_0)^{-\gamma}$. The argument proceeds by comparing this mapping fed with the instantaneous SFR (available in SAG only) against the same mapping fed with the average SFR, and then by testing linear proxies built from SFR and observed-frame u/g magnitudes as substitutes for the full calculation.

What would settle it

Re-run the two models that lack instantaneous star formation output with a time-substepping scheme that resolves the last ~10–25 Myr of star formation, recompute [O II] luminosities with get_emlines using that resolved SFR, and compare the resulting dust-attenuated luminosity function at L[OII] < $10^{42}$.2 erg/s with the one obtained from their average SFR; a discrepancy larger than 5% would show the claim is model-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the post-processing computation of [O II] luminosity from average star formation rates is accurate for model galaxies with dust-attenuated L[OII] ≲ $10^{42}$.2 erg/s (less than 5% discrepancy), and that in all three models considered the amplitude of the clustering at scales above 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc remains unchanged independently of the method used to derive L[OII]. This is established by comparing, within the SAG model, the [O II] luminosity functions obtained by feeding the get_emlines photoionisation prescription with instantaneous versus average SFRs; the two agree within 5% over the range $10^{41}$–$10^{42}$.2 erg/s for attenuated luminosities. The clustering robustness is demonstrated by computing projected two-point correlation functions for galaxies selected at L[OII] > $10^{40}$.4 erg/s, using direct code output, three linear proxies (SFR, u-band and g-band absolute magnitudes), and an observational SFR–metallicity conversion; across SAG, SAGE, and Galacticus, the methods agree within roughly 5–12% on scales above 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.

Load-bearing premise

The five-percent agreement was measured inside only one of the three models, where 'instantaneous' star formation means the mass of stars formed over the last ~10–25 Myr; the paper assumes the same insensitivity to SFR time resolution holds for the other two models, which subdivide time into ten steps and have different star formation histories, and this transferability is asserted rather than tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Semi-analytic galaxy formation models that output only average star formation rates can be post-processed with get_emlines to obtain [O II] luminosities within 5% of the instantaneous-rate result for typical emitters, so no re-simulation with finer time steps is needed for those galaxies.
  • Simple linear L[OII] proxies based on SFR or rest-frame UV u/g magnitudes yield luminosity functions whose shapes depend on the model, so they are not reliable for predicting number densities of bright [O II] emitters.
  • The projected two-point clustering of [O II] emitters above 1 h^-1 Mpc is robust to the luminosity-estimation method, with agreement within roughly 5–12% across models and estimators, supporting the use of cheap proxies in survey forecasts.
  • The halo occupation distribution of [O II] emitters changes little when different luminosity proxies are used, which justifies using simple proxies when building mock catalogues that need HODs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the 5% agreement was only established in one model, models with coarser output steps or burstier star formation histories (the other two considered here) could exceed that threshold; re-running them with shorter substeps would test this directly.
  • The clustering robustness means that BAO and redshift-space-distortion forecasts for upcoming emission-line surveys can safely use simple SFR or magnitude proxies, even though any measurement relying on accurate luminosity functions cannot.
  • The u/g magnitude proxies, if calibrated on real photometric surveys, could provide a way to estimate [O II] luminosity for galaxies without spectra, assuming the model correlations hold in the real Universe.
  • The finding that the 5% agreement region widens with redshift suggests the average-SFR approximation becomes more reliable at higher z, possibly because star formation is steadier; this could be checked by extending the SAG comparison beyond z = 1.2.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses three semi-analytic models (SAG, SAGE, Galacticus) run on the same MultiDark Planck 2 simulation to predict the properties of [O II] emitters at 0.6 < z < 1.2, comparing with DEEP2-Firefly and DEEP2+VVDS observations. The authors compute L[O II] with the get_emlines code, which ideally requires instantaneous SFRs; only SAG provides these, while SAGE and Galacticus output only average SFRs. Using SAG, they test average versus instantaneous SFR as inputs and report <5% differences in the resulting luminosity functions for a limited luminosity range. They also derive simple proxies for L[O II] from SFR and u/g magnitudes, and test these proxies against luminosity functions, halo occupation distributions, and the projected two-point correlation function, finding that the clustering amplitude above about 1 h^-1 Mpc is robust to the choice of proxy.

Significance. If the stated accuracy of using average SFRs holds beyond SAG, the paper provides useful practical guidance for adding emission-line luminosities to semi-analytic mock catalogues for DESI/Euclid-type surveys. The work has clear strengths: the three SAMs share the same dark-matter simulation and halo catalogues, the average-versus-instantaneous SFR test in Sec. 3.3 is a controlled internal comparison, the public data release includes DEEP2-Firefly quantities and model emission-line luminosities, and the dust implementation is made available on GitHub. The clustering conclusion is well supported by the proxy comparisons in Sec. 4.4.2. However, the central 5% accuracy claim is currently stated more generally than what is actually tested, and part of the luminosity-function agreement with observations is calibrated rather than predicted. These issues are fixable but require changes to the presentation and, ideally, an additional test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.1.4, 3.3, 3.4 and abstract] The 5% average-versus-instantaneous SFR result is established only within SAG, which subdivides the time between snapshots into 25 steps. SAGE and Galacticus split time into 10 steps and output only average SFRs, as stated in Sec. 2.1.4, and the paper itself notes at the beginning of Sec. 3 that a time-averaged SFR can include contributions from stellar populations older than those responsible for the nebular emission. No test shows that SAG's 5% margin survives the factor-of-2.5 coarser time sampling or the different star formation histories of SAGE and Galacticus, yet Sec. 3.4 applies average SFRs to these models and the abstract and Sec. 5 state the 5% result as a general finding. Please either add a direct test using a coarser SFR output from a model that also tracks a recent burst component, or explicitly restrict the claim to SAG and to the tested SFR time resolution.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 9] The dust attenuation parameters cos(theta)=0.60 and omega_lambda=0.80 are chosen to obtain the best agreement with the DEEP2+VVDS luminosity functions, as stated in Sec. 3.2. The agreement shown in Fig. 9 is therefore partly a calibration product rather than an independent validation of the get_emlines L[O II] prescription. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this in the conclusions where the luminosity-function agreement is highlighted, and ideally show the sensitivity of the comparison to these two parameters. The internal average-versus-instantaneous ratio analysis in Sec. 3.3 is less affected by this issue because both inputs share the same attenuation model.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 3.3, Sec. 5] The abstract states that post-processing L[O II] from average SFRs is accurate to <5% for dust-attenuated L[O II] <~ 10^42.2 erg/s, but Sec. 3.3 reports <5% agreement only in the narrower range 10^41-10^42.2 erg/s and states that the discrepancy grows to about 20% at fainter luminosities. The lower bound is essential and should not be dropped. The paper also gives conflicting lower bounds for the same range (10^41 in Sec. 3.3 and the summary versus 10^40.9 in the final paragraph of Sec. 3.3) and conflicting SFR ranges (10^-0.2 to 10^1.6 in Sec. 3.3 versus 1 to 10^1.5 in Sec. 5). These numbers need to be reconciled because the applicability range is part of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 caption] The caption says the relations use 'the instantaneous SFR for sage and average SFR for sage and galacticus'; the first occurrence should be SAG rather than sage.
  2. [Fig. C1 and Table C1 caption] The SAGE panels are labelled 'SAGE inst z=0.94' although SAGE provides only average SFRs; this is inconsistent with the main text and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The text refers to the 'BTP diagram' when describing the Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich diagram; this should read 'BPT diagram'.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 8] The DEEP2-Firefly comparison is described with the redshift range '0.9 < z < 11' in the text accompanying Fig. 8; this should be '0.9 < z < 1.1'.
  5. [Sec. 4.4.1] When describing the proxy luminosity functions, the shading is said to come from 100 Gaussian realisations but the covariance between the proxies and L[O II] is not discussed; a brief statement that the scatter is treated as independent would clarify the uncertainty estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Secondary [OII] luminosity-function validation is partly fitted via dust parameters tuned to DEEP2+VVDS, while the central average-vs-instantaneous SFR result is an independent internal test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 (Eqs. 9-10) and Sec. 3.4 / Fig. 9]
    "We assume cosθ = 0.60 and ωλ = 0.80, meaning that the scattering is not isotropic but more forward-oriented, and that 80% of the extinction is scattering. These are the values that return the best agreement with DEEP2+VVDS observations in Fig. 9. ... There are varying degrees of agreement between the models and observational data across the ∼3 decades in [O ii] luminosity and redshift range considered. Nevertheless, the trends from all the data sources are consistent."

    The dust attenuation parameters cosθ and ωλ are explicitly tuned to reproduce the DEEP2+VVDS [O ii] luminosity functions, and then the same DEEP2+VVDS comparison is presented in Sec. 3.4 and Fig. 9 as evidence that the model [O ii] luminosity functions agree with observations. Because the attenuation correction was optimized against that exact dataset, the resulting agreement is partly guaranteed by construction and cannot serve as an independent validation of the predicted luminosity functions. This circularity is confined to the secondary LF validation; the central average-vs-instantaneous SFR comparison applies the same attenuation to both inputs and does not reduce to this fit.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: the <5% accuracy claim for post-processing L[OII] from average SFRs is obtained by feeding SAG's instantaneous and average SFRs through the same get_emlines pipeline (Sec. 3.3, Figs. 6-7). Both inputs receive identical dust and photoionization treatment, so the ratio is an internal empirical comparison rather than a fitted result. The paper is also transparent that L[OII] from get_emlines is tightly related to SFR 'by construction' (Sec. 4.4). The one concrete circular step found is the secondary luminosity-function validation: the dust parameters are fitted to DEEP2+VVDS, and the same data are then used to demonstrate agreement in Fig. 9 and the conclusions. The use of get_emlines, calibrated in Orsi et al. (2014) with overlapping authorship, is a disclosed external tool calibration and is not load-bearing for the central result. The extension of the 5% result to SAGE and Galacticus, which output coarser 10-step average SFRs, is an untested transferability assumption; that is a correctness/limitation issue, not a circularity. Overall, the central claim has independent internal grounding, so the paper is only mildly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on the adopted get_emlines calibration (q0, gamma) and on two dust parameters tuned to match the very observational data used for comparison. No new physical entities are proposed.

free parameters (4)
  • Dust scattering angle cos(theta) = 0.60
    Chosen in Sec 3.2 because it returns the best agreement with DEEP2+VVDS observations in Fig. 9. This parameter controls the attenuation correction applied to all model L[OII] values used in the luminosity function comparisons.
  • Dust albedo omega_lambda = 0.80
    Selected in the same Sec 3.2 paragraph to match DEEP2+VVDS observed [OII] luminosity functions. Together with cos(theta) it sets the normalization of dust attenuation.
  • Ionisation parameter normalization q0 = 2.8e7 cm/s
    Adopted from Orsi et al. (2014), Eq. 4, calibrated to reproduce H-alpha, [OII], [OIII] luminosity functions and the BPT diagram. Not refitted here, but the get_emlines L[OII] outputs depend on it.
  • Ionisation parameter slope gamma = 1.3
    Also from Orsi et al. (2014), Eq. 4, adopted without refitting. The paper notes in Sec 3.1 that changing q0 and gamma would require recalibrating get_emlines.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Planck 2015 cosmological parameters are assumed throughout (Omega_m=0.6929, Omega_Lambda=0.3071, h=0.6777).
    Stated in Section 1. These values are used to convert fluxes to luminosities and to define the simulation box and redshift distances.
  • domain assumption The three semi-analytic models (SAG, SAGE, Galacticus) adequately describe galaxy formation and produce reliable stellar masses and SFRs in the studied redshift range.
    The whole analysis relies on these model outputs; the paper validates them against observed SFR and stellar mass functions in Figs 1-3.
  • domain assumption The MAPPINGS-III photoionisation model grid, as implemented in get_emlines, correctly predicts relative [OII] fluxes as a function of ionisation parameter and cold gas metallicity.
    This is the core physical model for L[OII] in Eq. 8, adopted from Orsi et al. (2014) and Levesque et al. (2010).
  • domain assumption SAG's instantaneous SFR, defined over the last ~10-25 Myr substep, is the physically relevant timescale for [OII] emission.
    Invoked in Sec 2.1.4 and 3.3 to justify using the SAG average-vs-instantaneous comparison as the test case. If the true [OII]-relevant timescale is shorter, the 5% result may not hold.
  • domain assumption The dust attenuation model of Eqs 9-14 (slab geometry, fixed albedo and scattering angle, hydrogen column density from disc scale length) applies uniformly to all model [OII] emitters.
    Adopted in Sec 3.2 from Spitzer (1978) and Devriendt et al. (1999). The two free parameters in this model are tuned to observations, as flagged separately.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of [OII] emitters in MultiDark-Galaxies and DEEP2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VHDGHOB

@misc{pith2026190805626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: [OII] emitters in MultiDark-Galaxies and DEEP2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VHDGHOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05626}
}
abstract

We use three semi-analytic models (SAMs) of galaxy formation and evolution, run on the same 1$h^{-1}$Gpc MultiDark Planck2 cosmological simulation, to investigate the properties of [OII] emission line galaxies in the redshift range $0.6<z<1.2$. We compare model predictions with different observational data sets, including DEEP2--Firefly galaxies with absolute magnitudes. We estimate the [OII] luminosity, L[OII], using simple relations derived both from the models and observations and also using a public code. This code ideally uses as input instantaneous star formation rates (SFRs), which are only provided by one of the SAMs under consideration. We use this SAM to study the feasibility of inferring galaxies' L[OII] for models that only provide average SFRs. We find that the post-processing computation of L[OII] from average SFRs is accurate for model galaxies with dust attenuated L[OII]$\lesssim10^{42.2}$erg s$^{-1}$ ($<5\%$ discrepancy). We also explore how to derive the [OII] luminosity from simple relations using global properties usually output by SAMs. Besides the SFR, the model L[OII] is best correlated with the observed-frame $u$ and $g$ broad-band magnitudes. These correlations have coefficients (r-values) above 0.64 and a dispersion that varies with L[OII]. We use these correlations and an observational one based on SFR and metallicity to derive L[OII]. These relations result in [OII] luminosity functions and halo occupation distributions with shapes that vary depending on both the model and the method used. Nevertheless, for all the considered models, the amplitude of the clustering at scales above 1$h^{-1}$Mpc remains unchanged independently of the method used to derive L[OII].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cosmic star formation rate density of sag, sage and galacticus MultiDark-Galaxies as a function of redshift, com￾pared to four independent compilations of data sets from Behroozi et al. (2013) (this was corrected to a Chabrier et al. (2014) IMF by the same authors), Madau & Dickinson (2014), Driver et al. (2018) and Gruppioni et al. (2015). The error bars are the 1σ dis￾persion around each point. We show this result… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MultiDark-Galaxies average SFR function evolution at z . 2 (lines) compared to the Herschel/PEP and HerMES observations (Gruppioni et al. 2015, filled circles). In SAMs, galaxy properties are obtained by solving cou￾pled differential equations in a certain number of steps in which the time interval between snapshots of the underly￾ing DM simulation is divided. In this context, we define the “instantaneous SFR” as th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar mass function evolution of our model galax￾ies (lines colour-coded as in the legend) compared to the SDSS￾GALEX z = 0.1 (Moustakas et al. 2013, black points) observa￾tions, the PRIMUS results at 0.50 < z < 0.65 (Moustakas et al. 2013, magenta triangles), the BOSS CMASS measurements at 0.5 < z < 0.6 not corrected from incompleteness (Maraston et al. 2013, green hexagons), the DEEP2-FF data at 0.9 < z < 1.1 (r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the distribution of the dust-attenuated L[O ii] computed with get emlines (see §3.1) from in￾stantaneous and average SFRs, for SAG model galaxies at z = 0.94 and with M? > 108.87M and SFR> 0 yr−1M (see Sec. 2.1.4). These model L[O ii] distributions are statistica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows, as a function of SFR, the intrinsic (i.e. cor￾rected from dust attenuation) L[O ii] that the coupling with get emlines gives for both the instantaneous (solid con￾tours) and average (dashed) SFR from sag at z ∼ 1. The innermost (outermost) contours enclose 68% (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average (dashed, salmon) versus instantaneous (solid, purple) SFR functions for SAG model galaxies. The bottom panel shows the ratio between the two, and the yellow, shaded region highlights the 5% region of agreement. −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 log10(Φ [Mpc − 3 dex − 1]) SAG z = …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intrinsic (thick lines) and attenuated (thin) [O ii] lu￾minosity functions based on sag average (dashed, salmon) and instantaneous SFR (solid, purple). The bottom panel shows the ratios between the two and the yellow stripe highlights the 5% re￾gion of agreement. We ap…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Dust attenuated [O ii] luminosity functions of the MultiDark-Galaxies at z ∼ 1 compared with DEEP2+VVDS observations (Comparat et al. 2016). We consider all SAM galax￾ies above 5 × 10−18 erg s−1 cm−2 . All the [O ii] luminosities are computed using the get emlines…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean gas-phase oxygen abundance in bins of stellar mass of the SDSS emission line galaxies at z ∼ 0.1 (Favole et al. 2017) compared to the MultiDark-Galaxies models. The abun￾dance is computed for the SAMs using Eq. 18. The error bars on the SDSS measurements are the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Intrinsic [O ii] luminosity as a function of the SFR from the MultiDark-Galaxies at z ∼ 1 (salmon, yellow and blue, filled contours), compared with the DEEP2-FF observations at 0.9 < z < 1.1 (grey, shaded squares, colour-coded with the density of emitters per 2D bin a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: From top to bottom and from left to right: sag, sage and galacticus z ∼ 1 intrinsic [O ii] luminosities versus broad-band magnitudes, ages and stellar masses (contours) compared with the DEEP2-FF observations at 0.9 < z < 1.1 (grey, shaded squares). The L[O ii] values…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left column: From top to bottom, attenuated [O ii] luminosity functions of the sag, sage and galacticus model galaxies at z ∼ 1. We show as thick lines the results with L[O ii] computed using the get emlines code described in Section 3.1 with either instantaneous or a…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mean halo occupation distribution of the sag (salmon solid line), sage (yellow solid line) and galacticus (blue solid line) model galaxies with L[O ii] > 1040.4 erg s−1 at z ∼ 1. The model L[O ii] has been computed using get emlines with in￾stantaneous SFR for sag gal…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Proxy-to-L[O ii] ratios of the projected two-point cor￾relation functions of, from top to bottom, sag, sage and galacti￾cus model galaxies at z ∼ 1. The SAG L[O ii] is estimated using the get emlines code with instantaneous SFR, while sage and galacticus using the ave…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Ratio between the HOD obtained from the L[O ii] calculated from the proxies indicated in the legend, and L[O ii] obtained using get emlines. From top to bottom, results are shown for the sag, sage and galacticus models. and evolution using different methods: (i) by co…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alam S. et al. , 2015, , 219, 12

    2015

  2. [2]

    G., Groves B

    Allen M. G., Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Kewley L. J., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 20

    2008

  3. [3]

    L., Asplund M., 2001, , 556, L63

    Allende Prieto C., Lambert D. L., Asplund M., 2001, , 556, L63

    2001

  4. [4]

    J., Scott P., 2009, , 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    K., Glazebrook K., Driver S

    Baldry I. K., Glazebrook K., Driver S. P., 2008, , 388, 945

    2008

  6. [6]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  7. [7]

    M., 2006, Reports of Progress in Physics, 69, 3101

    Baugh C. M., 2006, Reports of Progress in Physics, 69, 3101

    2006

  8. [8]

    S., Conroy C., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, , 717, 379

    2010

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, , 770, 57

    2013

  2. [10]

    J., 2010, , 495, 33

    Benson A. J., 2010, , 495, 33

    2010

  3. [11]

    J., 2012, , 17, 175

    Benson A. J., 2012, , 17, 175

    2012

  4. [12]

    A., Weinberg D

    Berlind A. A., Weinberg D. H., 2002, , 575, 587

    2002

  5. [13]

    Boselli A., Cortese L., Boquien M., Boissier S., Catinella B., Lagos C., Saintonge A., 2014, , 564, A66

    2014

  6. [14]

    G., Benson A

    Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, , 370, 645

    2006

  7. [15]

    M., Kauffmann G., Tremonti C., White S

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., Tremonti C., White S. D. M., 2004, ArXiv, astro-ph/0406220

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, , 533, 682

    2000

  9. [17]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  10. [18]

    Chabrier G., 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  11. [19]

    Chabrier G., Hennebelle P., Charlot S., 2014, , 796, 75

    2014

  12. [20]

    K., Best P

    Cochrane R. K., Best P. N., 2018, , 480, 864

    2018

  13. [21]

    K., Best P

    Cochrane R. K., Best P. N., Sobral D., Smail I., Wake D. A., Stott J. P., Geach J. E., 2017, , 469, 2913

    2017

  14. [22]

    A., Lagos C

    Collacchioni F., Cora S. A., Lagos C. D. P., Vega-Mart \' nez C. A., 2018, , 481, 954

    2018

  15. [23]

    Comparat J. et al. , 2017, ArXiv e-prints:1711.06575

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Comparat J. et al. , 2015, , 575, A40

    2015

  17. [25]

    Comparat J. et al. , 2016, , 461, 1076

    2016

  18. [26]

    H., Kravtsov A

    Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., Kravtsov A. V., 2006, , 647, 201

    2006

  19. [27]

    M., Norberg P., Padilla N., 2013, , 432, 2717

    Contreras S., Baugh C. M., Norberg P., Padilla N., 2013, , 432, 2717

    2013

  20. [28]

    Cooray A., Sheth R., 2002, , 372, 1

    2002

  21. [29]

    A., 2006, , 368, 1540

    Cora S. A., 2006, , 368, 1540

    2006

  22. [30]

    Cora S. A. et al. , 2018, , 479, 2

    2018

  23. [31]

    Croton D. J. et al. , 2006, , 365, 11

    2006

  24. [32]

    Croton D. J. et al. , 2016, , 222, 22

    2016

  25. [33]

    Dawson K. S. et al. , 2016, , 151, 44

    2016

  26. [34]

    De Lucia G., Blaizot J., 2007, , 375, 2

    2007

  27. [35]

    J., Fontanot F., Monaco P., 2010, , 406, 1533

    De Lucia G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Benson A. J., Fontanot F., Monaco P., 2010, , 406, 1533

    2010

  28. [36]

    Devriendt J. E. G., Guiderdoni B., Sadat R., 1999, , 350, 381

    1999

  29. [37]

    Dickey C. M. et al. , 2016, , 828, L11

    2016

  30. [38]

    T., 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 241

    Draine B. T., 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 241

    2003

  31. [39]

    Driver S. P. et al. , 2018, , 475, 2891

    2018

  32. [40]

    Eisenstein D. J. et al. , 2005, , 633, 560

    2005

  33. [41]

    Etherington J. et al. , 2017, , 466, 228

    2017

  34. [42]

    Faber S. M. et al. , 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds., pp. 1657--1669

    2003

  35. [43]

    H., 2013, Secular Evolution of Galaxies

    Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Knapen J. H., 2013, Secular Evolution of Galaxies

    2013

  36. [44]

    Favole G. et al. , 2016 a , , 461, 3421

    2016

  37. [45]

    K., Eisenstein D

    Favole G., McBride C. K., Eisenstein D. J., Prada F., Swanson M. E., Chuang C.-H., Schneider D. P., 2016 b , , 462, 2218

    2016

  38. [46]

    A., Comparat J., Prada F., Guo H., Klypin A., Montero-Dorta A

    Favole G., Rodr \' guez-Torres S. A., Comparat J., Prada F., Guo H., Klypin A., Montero-Dorta A. D., 2017, , 472, 550

    2017

  39. [47]

    S., Johnston K

    Font A. S., Johnston K. V., Ferguson A. M. N., Bullock J. S., Robertson B. E., Tumlinson J., Guhathakurta P., 2008, , 673, 215

    2008

  40. [48]

    Gargiulo I. D. et al. , 2015, , 446, 3820

    2015

  41. [49]

    E., Sobral D., Hickox R

    Geach J. E., Sobral D., Hickox R. C., Wake D. A., Smail I., Best P. N., Baugh C. M., Stott J. P., 2012, , 426, 679

    2012

  42. [50]

    Gonzalez-Perez V. et al. , 2018, , 474, 4024

    2018

  43. [51]

    G., Baugh C

    Gonzalez-Perez V., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., Lagos C. D. P., Helly J., Campbell D. J. R., Mitchell P. D., 2014, , 439, 264

    2014

  44. [52]

    A., Dopita M

    Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 153, 9

    2004

  45. [53]

    Gruppioni C. et al. , 2015, , 451, 3419

    2015

  46. [54]

    Guiderdoni B., Rocca-Volmerange B., 1987, , 186, 1

    1987

  47. [55]

    Guo H. et al. , 2018, arXiv:1810.05318 [astro-ph], arXiv: 1810.05318

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Guo Q. et al. , 2011, , 413, 101

    2011

  49. [57]

    Hatton S., Devriendt J. E. G., Ninin S., Bouchet F. R., Guiderdoni B., Vibert D., 2003, , 343, 75

    2003

  50. [58]

    Henriques B., Maraston C., Monaco P., Fontanot F., Menci N., De Lucia G., Tonini C., 2011, , 415, 3571

    2011

  51. [59]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., Overzier R., 2015, , 451, 2663

    2015

  52. [60]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R. E., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., 2013, , 431, 3373

    2013

  53. [61]

    P., Somerville R

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Somerville R. S., 2017, , 472, 2468

    2017

  54. [62]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., 2016, , 461, 1760

    2016

  55. [63]

    S., Burkert A., Oser L., 2012, , 419, 3200

    Hirschmann M., Naab T., Somerville R. S., Burkert A., Oser L., 2012, , 419, 3200

    2012

  56. [64]

    G., Frenk C

    Hou J., Lacey C. G., Frenk C. S., 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  57. [65]

    D., 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  58. [66]

    Izquierdo-Villalba D., Bonoli S., Spinoso D., Rosas-Guevara Y., Henriques B. M. B., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo C., 2019, , 488, 609

    2019

  59. [67]

    M., Gonzalez-Perez V., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04298

    Jim \'e nez E., Contreras S., Padilla N., Zehavi I., Baugh C. M., Gonzalez-Perez V., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04298

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Jouvel S. et al. , 2009, , 504, 359

    2009

  61. [69]

    Kauffmann G., White S. D. M., Guiderdoni B., 1993, , 264, 201

    1993

  62. [70]

    Kennicutt , Jr. R. C., 1998, , 36, 189

    1998

  63. [71]

    J., Geller M

    Kewley L. J., Geller M. J., Jansen R. A., 2004, , 127, 2002

    2004

  64. [72]

    Klypin A., Yepes G., Gottl \"o ber S., Prada F., He S., 2016, , 457, 4340

    2016

  65. [73]

    Knebe A. et al. , 2018, , 474, 5206

    2018

  66. [74]

    C., 2013, , 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, , 51, 511

    2013

  67. [75]

    V., Berlind A

    Kravtsov A. V., Berlind A. A., Wechsler R. H., Klypin A. A., Gottl \"o ber S., Allgood B., Primack J. R., 2004, , 609, 35

    2004

  68. [76]

    Kroupa P., 2001, , 322, 231

    2001

  69. [77]

    Lagos C. D. P., Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G., Benson A. J., Kim H.-S., Power C., 2011, , 418, 1649

    2011

  70. [78]

    Lagos C. D. P., Cora S. A., Padilla N. D., 2008, , 388, 587

    2008

  71. [79]

    Lagos C. d. P., Lacey C. G., Baugh C. M., 2013, , 436, 1787

    2013

  72. [80]

    D., Szalay A

    Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, , 412, 64

    1993

  73. [81]

    Laureijs R. et al. , 2011, ArXiv e-prints: 1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    M., Kewley L

    Levesque E. M., Kewley L. J., Graham J. F., Fruchter A. S., 2010, , 712, L26

    2010

  75. [83]

    Li C., White S. D. M., 2009, , 398, 2177

    2009

  76. [84]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  77. [85]

    Maraston C. et al. , 2013, , 435, 2764

    2013

  78. [86]

    Maraston C., Str \"o mb \"a ck G., 2011, , 418, 2785

    2011

  79. [87]

    M., Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M

    Martin A. M., Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M. P., Springob C. M., Stierwalt S., 2010, , 723, 1359

    2010

  80. [88]

    J., Newman J

    Matthews D. J., Newman J. A., Coil A. L., Cooper M. C., Gwyn S. D. J., 2013, , 204, 21

    2013

  81. [89]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013, , 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, , 764, 184

    2013

  82. [90]

    Merson A., Wang Y., Benson A., Faisst A., Masters D., Kiessling A., Rhodes J., 2018, , 474, 177

    2018

  83. [91]

    I., Baugh C

    Merson A. I., Baugh C. M., Gonzalez-Perez V., Abdalla F. B., Lagos C. d. P., Mei S., 2016, , 456, 1681

    2016

  84. [92]

    Mohammad F. G. et al. , 2018, , 610, A59

    2018

  85. [93]

    J., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., Borgani S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2014, , 441, 2058

    Monaco P., Benson A. J., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., Borgani S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2014, , 441, 2058

    2014

  86. [94]

    Moustakas J. et al. , 2013, , 767, 50

    2013

  87. [95]

    Moustakas J., Kennicutt , Jr. R. C., Tremonti C. A., 2006, , 642, 775

    2006

  88. [96]

    M., Navarrete F

    Mu \ n oz Arancibia A. M., Navarrete F. P., Padilla N. D., Cora S. A., Gawiser E., Kurczynski P., Ruiz A. N., 2015, , 446, 2291

    2015

  89. [97]

    Newman J. A. et al. , 2013, , 208, 5

    2013

  90. [98]

    Nuza S. E. et al. , 2013, , 432, 743

    2013

  91. [99]

    Orsi \'A ., Padilla N., Groves B., Cora S., Tecce T., Gargiulo I., Ruiz A., 2014, , 443, 799

    2014

  92. [100]

    A., Angulo R

    Orsi \'A . A., Angulo R. E., 2018, , 475, 2530

    2018

  93. [101]

    E., 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    Osterbrock D. E., 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    1989

  94. [102]

    Pagel B. E. J., Edmunds M. G., Blackwell D. E., Chun M. S., Smith G., 1979, , 189, 95

    1979

  95. [103]

    , 2015, ArXiv e-prints

    Planck Collaboration et al. , 2015, ArXiv e-prints

    2015

  96. [104]

    Prugniel P., Soubiran C., Koleva M., Le Borgne D., 2007, ArXiv, astro-ph/0703658

    2007 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Ruiz A. N. et al. , 2015, , 801, 139

    2015

  98. [106]

    Sartoris B. et al. , 2015, ArXiv e-prints: 1505.02165

    2015 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Schlegel D. J. et al. , 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    2015

  100. [108]

    N., Matsuda Y., Smail I., Geach J

    Sobral D., Best P. N., Matsuda Y., Smail I., Geach J. E., Cirasuolo M., 2012, , 420, 1926

    2012

  101. [109]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, , 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, , 53, 51

    2015

  102. [110]

    Spitzer L., 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium

    1978

  103. [111]

    Stevens A. R. H., Brown T., 2017, , 471, 447

    2017

  104. [112]

    Talia M. et al. , 2015, , 582, A80

    2015

  105. [113]

    Tomczak A. R. et al. , 2014, , 783, 85

    2014

  106. [114]

    Tonini C., Maraston C., Devriendt J., Thomas D., Silk J., 2009, , 396, L36

    2009

  107. [115]

    Tremonti C. A. et al. , 2004, , 613, 898

    2004

  108. [116]

    J., 2011, , 742, 16

    Trujillo-Gomez S., Klypin A., Primack J., Romanowsky A. J., 2011, , 742, 16

    2011

  109. [117]

    B., Fisher J

    Tully R. B., Fisher J. R., 1977, , 54, 661

    1977

  110. [118]

    Valentino F. et al. , 2017, , 472, 4878

    2017

  111. [119]

    M., van den Bosch F

    Weinmann S. M., van den Bosch F. C., Yang X., Mo H. J., Croton D. J., Moore B., 2006, , 372, 1161

    2006

  112. [120]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, , 379, 52

    1991

  113. [121]

    M., Maraston C., Goddard D., Thomas D., Parikh T., 2017, , 472, 4297

    Wilkinson D. M., Maraston C., Goddard D., Thomas D., Parikh T., 2017, , 472, 4297

    2017

  114. [122]

    M., 2014, The chemical evolution of galaxies in semi-analytic models and observations

    Yates R. M., 2014, The chemical evolution of galaxies in semi-analytic models and observations

    2014

  115. [123]

    Zheng Z. et al. , 2005, , 633, 791

    2005

  116. [124]

    L., Zehavi I., 2007, , 667, 760

    Zheng Z., Coil A. L., Zehavi I., 2007, , 667, 760

    2007

  117. [125]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  118. [126]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.