Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 121 references

UV bright red-sequence galaxies: how do UV upturn systems evolve in redshift and stellar mass?

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 The proportion of UV upturn galaxies among red-sequence galaxies rises with stellar mass and peaks near z≈0.25.

desk verdict A plausible but not secure measurement of UV upturn prevalence among field red-sequence galaxies; the mass trend is the robust part, while the claimed redshift infall and uncorrected selection need work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06775 v2 pith:6L6Z62QG submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.GA

M. L. L. Dantas , P. R. T. Coelho , R. S. de Souza , T. S. Gonçalves This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords UVupturnred-sequencegalaxiesBayesianlogisticregressionWHANdiagramGALEXGAMAsurveygalaxyevolutionstellarmass
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 tries to establish how common the ultraviolet (UV) upturn is among red-sequence galaxies that are bright enough to be seen in the far-UV, and how that incidence changes with redshift, stellar mass, and emission-line classification. Using a matched GALEX/SDSS/GAMA sample spanning z=0.06 to 0.40, the authors define UV-bright red-sequence galaxies by the adopted colour cuts and model the probability of hosting a UV upturn with a Bayesian logistic regression. They find that among retired/passive galaxies the fraction of UV upturn hosts rises from z≈0.06 to z≈0.20–0.25 and then falls convincingly to z≈0.35, and that the fraction rises with stellar mass across the sampled range. The result matters because it turns the UV upturn from a property of individual ellipticals into a population statistic that changes on gigayear timescales and with galaxy mass, giving stellar-population models a target to explain.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a Bayesian logistic regression for the binary outcome 'UV upturn versus UV weak'. The logit of the probability is modelled as a second-degree polynomial in redshift and stellar mass, with a hierarchical term for WHAN emission-line classes, so the dependence on $z$ and $\log M_\star$ is estimated jointly rather than in bins. The other load-bearing piece is the adopted colour-class cut: $(NUV-r)>5.4$ picks UV-bright red-sequence galaxies, and $(FUV-NUV)<0.9$ with $(FUV-r)<6.6$ separates UV upturn hosts from UV weak ones. Stratifying by WHAN classes (star-forming, strong and weak AGN, retired/passive, unclassified) is what lets the paper attribute the overall trends to quiescent galaxies.

What would settle it

Re-run the same sample and model after applying the paper's own internal-extinction corrections ($A_{\rm FUV}=2.536A_V$, $A_{\rm NUV}=2.045A_V$, $A_r=0.8695A_V$, with $A_V\approx0.2$ for UV weak systems and lower for UV upturn systems) and after adding a term for GALEX FUV detection probability. If the $z\approx0.25$ peak and the rising mass trend in retired/passive galaxies disappear or reverse under these corrections, the central claim fails; if they persist, it would be corroborated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the probability that a UV-bright red-sequence galaxy manifests the UV upturn is not constant: it depends on both stellar mass and redshift, and the cleanest, most statistically reliable trend is in retired/passive (quiescent, lineless) systems. In those systems the upturn fraction increases with stellar mass over roughly $\log M_\star \approx 10$–$11.5$ and, in redshift, rises to a maximum around $z\approx0.20$–$0.25$ before declining out to $z\approx0.35$; the paper states that this decline is clearly seen. Broadly, the same shape appears in the runs without emission-line stratification, while star-forming and unclassified galaxies show weaker or less certain trends, and weak/strong AGN classes are too scarce and boundary-affected to support a claim. The authors also report that the photometric criteria they use are robust against bona fide AGN contamination, and that even within a volume-limited subsample the same qualitative trends survive.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the assumption that the adopted colour cuts, applied to k-corrected GALEX/SDSS photometry without correcting for each galaxy's own dust, correctly separate true UV upturn galaxies from UV weak ones at every redshift and mass, and that FUV detection does not selectively exclude red-sequence galaxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rising-with-mass trend is real, the UV upturn is more frequent in more massive quiescent galaxies, which points toward hot evolved stellar populations becoming more prominent in deep potential wells.
  • The redshift peak near $z\approx0.20$–$0.25$ implies the occurrence rate of the UV upturn within UV-bright red-sequence galaxies changes over a lookback time of roughly 2.5–3 Gyr, so it is an evolutionary quantity, not a fixed galaxy property.
  • The absence of a reliable trend for weak and strong AGN classes means the adopted UV classification is not being driven by AGN activity; any explanation of the UV upturn does not need an AGN component.
  • The paper's fractions are likely underestimated, not overestimated, if internal extinction is corrected for, because more UV weak systems migrate into the UV upturn class than leave it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, one testable extension is to replace stellar mass with central velocity dispersion in the same logistic model; if the mass trend is really about the depth of the potential well, the dispersion version should show a tighter or steeper relation than seen here.
  • The redshift peak could partly reflect GALEX MIS depth and large UV k-corrections; a direct check is to repeat the analysis with a sample from the deeper GALEX DIS fields, where FUV detectability is higher at fixed $z$ and mass.
  • The analysis only covers UV-bright red-sequence galaxies. The same Bayesian machinery applied to the full red sequence, including FUV non-detections modelled through survival analysis or a detection-probability term, would tell whether the reported trends hold for the whole quiescent population or only the UV-bright tail.
  • If the in-fall after $z\approx0.25$ is physical, it would predict that the hot stellar populations responsible for the upturn were more common or hotter at lookback times of roughly 3 Gyr; a stellar-population synthesis model with an evolving fraction of extreme horizontal branch stars could be fit to the observed fractions to quantify that evolution.
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 estimates the incidence of UV upturn among UV-bright red-sequence galaxies (RSGs) selected from GAMA-DR3 with GALEX MIS and SDSS photometry, using the Yi et al. (2011) colour criteria and WHAN emission-line classifications. A Bayesian logistic regression models the probability that a UV-bright RSG is classed as UV upturn as a quadratic function of redshift and stellar mass, with a second version stratified by emission-line class. The main claims are that the UV-upturn fraction rises with stellar mass, particularly for retired/passive systems, and that for retired/passive systems the fraction rises with redshift up to z ~ 0.20-0.25 and then declines.

Significance. If the trends are real, the paper provides a statistically framed measurement of how UV-upturn incidence depends on stellar mass and redshift among quiescent UV-bright galaxies, complementing cluster-based studies such as Ali et al. (2018c). The analysis is transparent in its use of public GAMA/GALEX/SDSS data, makes the statistical model explicit, and includes supplementary material: a volume-limited subsample and a discussion of internal-extinction effects. These strengths make the paper a potentially useful contribution to the study of evolved stellar populations in early-type galaxies. However, the central claims rest on the assumption that the FUV-detection-based sample is not biased by UV class in a redshift- or mass-dependent way, and this assumption is not tested; the paper itself also hedges the post-peak decline in Sec. 5.1 while asserting it clearly in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, §5.1, Appendix C] The sample requires FUV detection in GALEX MIS, while the UV-upturn class is defined by bluer (FUV-NUV) and hence brighter FUV at fixed r and NUV. At higher redshift, the apparent FUV flux limit removes UV-weak galaxies preferentially, which would inflate the estimated UV-upturn fraction. Including log M* in the logistic regression does not correct for this because the selection is in FUV apparent magnitude, not in stellar mass. The volume-limited test in Appendix C cuts on M_r rather than absolute FUV magnitude, so it does not remove the bias. The paper should either model the FUV detection probability as a function of redshift, magnitude, and colour, or restrict the analysis to a region of absolute FUV magnitude where the sample is complete, and then re-fit the logistic model.
  2. [§5.1 versus Summary & Conclusions, point 5] There is an internal inconsistency about the post-peak redshift trend. Section 5.1 states that 'one cannot safely affirm whether the probability decreases, increases, or plateaus' after the peak, but the abstract and the conclusions state that an in-fall 'can be clearly seen'. The conclusions should be reworded to match the stated statistical uncertainty, or the authors should provide an additional test (e.g., a comparison of model evidence for a declining versus a plateauing trend) that supports the stronger claim.
  3. [Appendix A2.2, Eq. (A2)] Internal extinction is not corrected, and the paper's own estimate is that roughly 30 per cent of UV-weak systems would migrate to another UV class and about 6 per cent of UV-upturn systems would migrate out if extinction were accounted for. Since the UV class is the binary response variable in the logistic regression, this level of classification migration can directly change the fitted fraction surface. The paper does not show that the migration is symmetric in redshift and stellar mass; if it is not, the claimed mass and redshift trends could be partly driven by misclassification. A robustness test using extinction-corrected classifications, or explicitly propagating the classification uncertainty into the regression, is needed before the central trends can be considered secure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] There is a typo: 'restrictions on the quality ofz measurements ware taken into account' should read 'were taken into account'.
  2. [§3.1] The text says the WHAN diagram 'segragates' galaxies into five groups; 'segregates' is meant.
  3. [§6.2] The phrase 'one must consider the a few issues' contains a stray article and should be edited.
  4. [Fig. 6 and Fig. 7] The bar charts display fractions without error bars or credible intervals. Given the small counts in the highest-redshift bins, adding Poisson or binomial error bars would help the reader judge the significance of the apparent trends.
  5. [Appendix C] The text says the volume-limited subsample shows 'very similar trends' to Figs. 9 and 10, but it would be useful to state explicitly whether the peak redshift and the mass-dependence slope are consistent within the credible intervals, rather than only visually similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UV-upturn fraction is an externally defined photometric class regressed on redshift and stellar mass, and the reported trends are empirical fits rather than derivations from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an observational statistical analysis, not a first-principles derivation. The response variable is defined by the external Yi et al. (2011) colour cuts applied to GALEX/SDSS photometry, and the predictors are redshift, stellar mass, and WHAN emission-line class. The Bayesian logistic regression is explicitly fitted to the observed sample to estimate the probability that a UV-bright red-sequence galaxy is classified as UV upturn; these estimates are then presented as trends, not as independent predictions. No equation defines the inputs in terms of the output, and the classification is not derived from the fitted fractions. The only self-citations (De Souza et al. 2015, 2016, 2017) are used for methodological motivation and for the interpretation of LINERs as weak AGN; they are not load-bearing for the central mass or redshift results, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper's own caveats about the FUV detection limit, internal extinction, and the widened credible intervals after the inferred peak (Sec. 5.1, Sec. 2.4, Appendix A2.2) are selection-systematic and robustness limitations, not circularity: they weaken external validity but do not make the fitted fractions equivalent to the inputs by construction. The volume-limited Appendix C check is a robustness test, not a prediction drawn from the same fitted parameters in a way that would force the conclusion. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain reduction is present, and the derivation chain is self-contained relative to its stated empirical goal.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on public observational catalogues and standard statistical tools. No new physical entities are introduced. The main epistemic burden is that the photometric UV classification and the detection-selected sample are treated as reliable despite known dust and completeness issues.

free parameters (1)
  • Logistic regression coefficients per class (intercept, log M*, log M*^2, z, z^2) = Posterior values not tabulated
    All central results (Figs. 9 to 12) are posterior fits from these parameters. Without tables, code, or posterior summaries, the fitted values cannot be independently inspected or re-evaluated from the text.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Yi et al. (2011) colour cuts classify UV upturn and UV weak galaxies reliably.
    Used in Sec. 2.3 to define the sample. Appendix A2.2 shows boundary migrations due to dust could shift about 30 per cent of UV weak objects, so this assumption is load-bearing and imperfect.
  • domain assumption The GAMA/GALEX/SDSS matched sample, selected by FUV and NUV detection, is representative of UV-bright red-sequence galaxies.
    Selection in Sec. 2.1 requires both GALEX bands. No completeness or detection-probability model is applied over z and mass, so sample representativeness is assumed.
  • domain assumption GAMA k-corrections are accurate in the UV.
    K-corrections from kCorrect (Blanton and Roweis 2007) are applied throughout. Sec. 6 notes large k-corrections near classification boundaries as z increases.
  • domain assumption Internal extinction is small enough not to alter the conclusions.
    No internal extinction correction is applied (Sec. 2.4, Appendix A2.2). The authors report expected migration rates that could change fractions, so the assumption is explicit and questionable.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses from Taylor et al. (2011) are accurate and complete enough for the regression.
    log M* is a direct covariate in the model (Sec. 4). Mass completeness is not modelled beyond showing the CDF.
  • ad hoc to paper Second-degree polynomial in z and log M* is the correct functional form.
    Adopted in Sec. 4 without model comparison or goodness-of-fit checks. The claimed turnover in z is a property of the chosen quadratic.
  • standard math Bernoulli/logistic regression with Normal(0,10) priors and HMC convergence is adequate.
    Standard statistical machinery, not the main source of circularity or bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UV bright red-sequence galaxies: how do UV upturn systems evolve in redshift and stellar mass?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6L6Z62QG

@misc{pith2026190806775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UV bright red-sequence galaxies: how do UV upturn systems evolve in redshift and stellar mass?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6L6Z62QG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06775}
}
read the original abstract

The so-called ultraviolet (UV) upturn of elliptical galaxies is a phenomenon characterised by the up-rise of their fluxes in bluer wavelengths, typically in the 1,200-2,500A range. This work aims at estimating the rate of occurrence of the UV upturn over the entire red-sequence population of galaxies that show significant UV emission. This assessment is made considering it as function of three parameters: redshift, stellar mass, and -- what may seem counter-intuitive at first -- emission-line classification. We built a multiwavelength spectro-photometric catalogue from the Galaxy Mass Assembly survey, together with aperture-matched data from Galaxy Evolution Explorer Medium-Depth Imaging Survey (MIS) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey, covering the redshift range between 0.06 and 0.40. From this sample, we analyse the UV emission among UV bright galaxies, by selecting those that occupy the red-sequence locus in the (NUV-r) x (FUV-NUV) chart; then, we stratify the sample by their emission-line classes. To that end, we make use of emission-line diagnostic diagrams, focusing the analysis in retired/passive lineless galaxies. Then, a Bayesian logistic model was built to simultaneously deal with the effects of all galaxy properties (including emission-line classification or lack thereof). The main results show that retired/passive systems host an up-rise in the fraction of UV upturn or redshifts between 0.06 and 0.25, followed by an in-fall up to 0.35. Additionally, we show that the fraction of UV upturn hosts rises with increasing stellar mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06775 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UV-optical colour-colour diagnostic diagram for the sample with the proposed classes by Yi et al. (2011). The green round markers represent galaxies classified as ‘residual star￾formation’ (RSF); the light orange squares, the UV weak; and the strong orange diamond-shaped markers, the UV upturn. Sys￾tems with (NUV-r)>5.4 are our UV-bright RSGs (in both light and dark orange). RSGs. The second criterion measures the r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three colour-magnitude charts composed by UV and optical bands are displayed above; all of them are in terms of absolute magnitude in the r-band (Mr ). The top, middle, and bottom panels show, respectively, the diagrams in terms of the following colours: (NUV-r), (FUV-r), and (g−r). Their respective normalised (by area) distributions (κ) are also displayed in the adjacent histograms. 3 OVERVIEW OF THE RSG SAMPLE The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of log M? for the UV weak and upturn sub-samples herein. The y-axis displays the total amount of galaxies of our sample, being 0 equivalent to 0 per cent and 1 to 100 per cent. There is a small log M? shift between the UV weak and upturn CDFs; the latter is composed by slightly more massive systems. (Cid Fernandes et al. 2011) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boxplots displaying the distribution of absolute mag￾nitude in the r-band (Mr ) given a set of z bins for the RSGs in our sample. UV weak and upturn are respectively displayed by light and dark shades of orange. The coloured regions of the boxplots display the interqua…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The galaxies in our primary sample with detectable emission lines are shown in BPT (top panel, Baldwin et al. 1981) and WHAN (bottom panel, Cid Fernandes et al. 2011) diagrams, colour-coded by their UV classes: green, light orange, and dark orange represent, in order, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bar chart displaying the percentage of galaxies that present UV upturn in terms of the entire RSGs population (hence, the sum of the UV weak and upturn objects). For each z bin, the numbers corresponding to the de facto sum of RSGs and UV upturn bearers, are shown in f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bar charts analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A matrix representation of the Bayesian Bernoulli model expressing the hierarchy of dependencies between the UV upturn likelihood p ≡ fupturn , the stellar mass (log M?), and red￾shift (z) a data set of galaxies indexed by the subscript i. Their respective emission li…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction ( fupturn) of UV bright RSGs that foster the UV upturn phenomenon according to their log M?. The blue shaded areas depict 50 and 95 per cent probability intervals. A dashed line is displayed at log M? = 10.0 to remind the reader of the small number of objects …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction ( fupturn) of UV bright RSGs that foster the UV upturn phenomenon according to their z. The blue shaded areas depict 50 and 95 per cent probability intervals. decrease, the credible intervals widen considerably, and one cannot safely affirm whether the probab…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fraction ( fupturn) of UV bright RSGs that foster the UV upturn phenomenon according to their log M?, stratified by their emission-line classes. In this image, the z slice is the median of our sample: z ≈ 0.21. A dashed line is again displayed at log M? = 10.0, as wel…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fraction ( fupturn) of UV bright RSGs that foster the UV upturn phenomenon as a function of z, stratified by their emission-line classes. Projections of fupturn are displayed for four slices of log M?, as shown in each corresponding x-axis. The blue shaded areas depic…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  4. [4]

    S., Bremer M

    Ali S. S., Bremer M. N., Phillipps S., De Propris R., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.476.1010A 476, 1010

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty227

  5. [5]

    S., Bremer M

    Ali S. S., Bremer M. N., Phillipps S., De Propris R., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.478..541A 478, 541

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1160

  6. [6]

    S., Bremer M

    Ali S. S., Bremer M. N., Phillipps S., De Propris R., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480.2236A 480, 2236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1988

  7. [7]

    S., Bremer M

    Ali S. S., Bremer M. N., Phillipps S., De Propris R., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1502 , 487, 3021

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1502 2019

  8. [8]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1993ARA&A..31..473A 31, 473

    arXiv 1993

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3042 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3875B 474, 3875

    Baldry I. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3042 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3875B 474, 3875

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    1981 doi

  4. [12]

    E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1988ApJ...331..699B 331, 699

    Barnes J. E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1988ApJ...331..699B 331, 699

    1988 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Csabai I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.457..362B 457, 362

    Beck R., Dobos L., Yip C.-W., Szalay A. S., Csabai I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.457..362B 457, 362

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.461.3111B 461, 3111

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    arXiv:1403.5237

    Benitez N., et al., 2014, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014arXiv1403.5237B p. arXiv:1403.5237

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-014-1973-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ap&SS.354...83B 354, 83

    Bettoni D., Mazzei P., Rampazzo R., Marino A., Galletta G., Buson L. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-014-1973-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ap&SS.354...83B 354, 83

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Bianchi L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-014-1935-6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ap

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Roweis S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510127 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..734B 133, 734

    Blanton M. R., Roweis S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510127 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..734B 133, 734

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Boissier S., Cucciati O., Boselli A., Mei S., Ferrarese L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...611A..42B 611, A42

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Chapman & Hall/CRC Handbooks of Modern Statistical Methods, CRC Press, https://books.google.es/books?id=qfRsAIKZ4rIC

    Brooks S., Gelman A., Jones G., Meng X., 2011, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Chapman & Hall/CRC Handbooks of Modern Statistical Methods, CRC Press, https://books.google.es/books?id=qfRsAIKZ4rIC

    2011

  13. [21]

    M., 1999, in Hubeny I., Heap S., Cornett R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Brown T. M., 1999, in Hubeny I., Heap S., Cornett R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 192, Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies. p. 315 ( @eprint astro-ph/9905377 )

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M., 2004, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044324.60467.d2 , 291, 215

    Brown T. M., 2004, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044324.60467.d2 , 291, 215

    2004

  15. [23]

    M., Ferguson H

    Brown T. M., Ferguson H. C., Stanford S. A., Deharveng J.-M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306079 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..113B 504, 113

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Bowers C

    Brown T. M., Bowers C. W., Kimble R. A., Sweigart A. V., Ferguson H. C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308566 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..308B 532, 308

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    2003

  18. [26]

    M., Faber S

    Burstein D., Bertola F., Buson L. M., Faber S. M., Lauer T. R., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1988ApJ...328..440B 328, 440

    1988 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  21. [29]

    Carpenter B., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Statistical Software] 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 , 76

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    Chung C., Yoon S.-J., Lee Y.-W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017ApJ...842...91C 842, 91

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Vieira da Silva Jr

    Cid Fernandes R., Sodr \'e Jr. L., Vieira da Silva Jr. L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317207 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...544..123C 544, 123

    2000 doi

  25. [35]

    D., 1969, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/128809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1969PASP...81..475C 81, 475

    Code A. D., 1969, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/128809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1969PASP...81..475C 81, 475

    1969 doi

  26. [36]

    D., Welch G

    Code A. D., Welch G. A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1979ApJ...228...95C 228, 95

    1979 doi

  27. [38]

    Da Cunha E., Charlot S., Elbaz D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1595D 388, 1595

    2008

  28. [39]

    I., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A..63D 626, A63

    Davies J. I., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A..63D 626, A63

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv597 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3503D 449, 3503

    Davis T. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv597 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3503D 449, 3503

    2015 doi

  30. [42]

    De Meulenaer P., Narbutis D., Mineikis T., Vansevi c ius V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..20D 550, A20

    2013 doi

  31. [43]

    S., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2015.04.002 , 12, 21

    De Souza R. S., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2015.04.002 , 12, 21

    2015 doi

  32. [44]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2115D 461, 2115

    De Souza R. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2115D 461, 2115

    2016 doi

  33. [45]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2808D 472, 2808

    De Souza R. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2808D 472, 2808

    2017 doi

  34. [46]

    Deharveng J.-M., Boselli A., Donas J., 2002, @doi [AeA] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021082 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  35. [47]

    Doi M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1628D 139, 1628

    2010 doi

  36. [48]

    Donahue M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/881 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..881D 715, 881

    2010 doi

  37. [49]

    T., O'Connell R

    Dorman B., Rood R. T., O'Connell R. W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1993ApJ...419..596D 419, 596

    1993 doi

  38. [50]

    Elitzur M., Shlosman I., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648L.101E 648, L101

    2006 doi

  39. [51]

    C., Davidsen A

    Ferguson H. C., Davidsen A. F., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172572 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408...92F 408, 92

    1993 doi

  40. [52]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    1999 doi

  41. [53]

    B., 1992, @doi [Statist

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, @doi [Statist. Sci.] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , 7, 457

    1992

  42. [54]

    Gil de Paz A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516636 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..185G 173, 185

    2007 doi

  43. [55]

    Greggio L., Renzini A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...364...35G 364, 35

    1990 doi

  44. [56]

    Greggio L., Renzini A., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MmSAI..70..691G 70, 691

    1999

  45. [57]

    H., S \'a nchez S

    Haines T., McIntosh D. H., S \'a nchez S. F., Tremonti C., Rudnick G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv989 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451..433H 451, 433

    2015 doi

  46. [59]

    Heinis S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016ApJ...826...62H 826, 62

    2016 doi

  47. [60]

    Hern \' a ndez-P \' e rez F., Bruzual G., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1627 , 444, 2571

    2014 doi

  48. [61]

    Herpich F., Stasi \'n ska G., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., Cid Fernandes R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2391 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1774H 481, 1774

    2018 doi

  49. [62]

    Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.com.br/books?id=7D2wDgAAQBAJ

    Hilbe J., de Souza R., Ishida E., 2017, Bayesian Models for Astrophysical Data: Using R, JAGS, Python, and Stan. Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.com.br/books?id=7D2wDgAAQBAJ

    2017

  50. [63]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013MNRAS.430.2047H 430, 2047

    Hopkins A. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013MNRAS.430.2047H 430, 2047

    2013 doi

  51. [64]

    P., 1926, @doi [ ] 10.1086/143018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1926ApJ....64..321H 64, 321

    Hubble E. P., 1926, @doi [ ] 10.1086/143018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1926ApJ....64..321H 64, 321

    1926 doi

  52. [65]

    K., Malkan M

    Hunt L. K., Malkan M. A., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/307150 , 516, 660

    1999 doi

  53. [66]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    2003

  54. [67]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA26A..36..189K 36, 189

    1998 doi

  55. [68]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  56. [69]

    G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1024 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..766L 461, 766

    Le Cras C., Maraston C., Thomas D., York D. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1024 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..766L 461, 766

    2016 doi

  57. [70]

    Lee Y.-W., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428944 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621L..57L 621, L57

    2005 doi

  58. [71]

    Liske J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1436 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2087L 452, 2087

    2015 doi

  59. [72]

    L \'o pez-Corredoira M., Vazdekis A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...614A.127L 614, A127

    2018 doi

  60. [73]

    I., Sánchez-Blázquez P., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17666.x , 410, 2679

    Loubser S. I., Sánchez-Blázquez P., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17666.x , 410, 2679

    2011

  61. [74]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  62. [75]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , 52, 415

    2014 doi

  63. [76]

    C., Dickinson M

    Madau P., Ferguson H. C., Dickinson M. E., Giavalisco M., Steidel C. C., Fruchter A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283.1388M 283, 1388

    1996 doi

  64. [77]

    G., 1922, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MeLuF.100....1M 100, 1

    Malmquist K. G., 1922, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MeLuF.100....1M 100, 1

    1922

  65. [78]

    Maraston C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..799M 362, 799

    2005

  66. [79]

    C., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    Martin D. C., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    2005 doi

  67. [80]

    Mendes de Oliveira C., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    2019 doi

  68. [81]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..682M 173, 682

    2007 doi

  69. [82]

    Naab T., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1919 , 444, 3357

    2014 doi

  70. [83]

    Netzer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..365N 53, 365

    2015 doi

  71. [84]

    W., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ARA

    O'Connell R. W., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ARA

    1999 doi

  72. [85]

    G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...505L..11O 505, L11

    Ohl R. G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...505L..11O 505, L11

    1998 doi

  73. [87]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  74. [88]

    B., Zepf S

    Peacock M. B., Zepf S. E., Maccarone T. J., Kundu A., Knigge C., Dieball A., Strader J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.481.3313P 481, 3313

    2018 doi

  75. [89]

    Peng F., Nagai D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009ApJ...705L..58P 705, L58

    2009 doi

  76. [90]

    Piotto G., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518503 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661L..53P 661, L53

    2007 doi

  77. [92]

    H., et al., 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 173, 607

    Ree C. H., et al., 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 173, 607

    2007

  78. [93]

    M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426939 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L.107R 619, L107

    Rich R. M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426939 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L.107R 619, L107

    2005 doi

  79. [94]

    Riddell A., et al., 2018, stan-dev/pystan: v2.18.0.0, @doi 10.5281/ZENODO.1456206 , https://zenodo.org/record/1456206

    2018

  80. [95]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L290 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714L.290S 714, L290

    Salim S., Rich R. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L290 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714L.290S 714, L290

    2010 doi

  81. [96]

    Salim S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519218 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..267S 173, 267

    2007 doi

  82. [97]

    K., Kawata D., Cardiel N., Balcells M., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15557.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009MNRAS.400.1264S 400, 1264

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Gibson B. K., Kawata D., Cardiel N., Balcells M., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15557.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009MNRAS.400.1264S 400, 1264

    2009

  83. [98]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., et al., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811355 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009A&A...499...47S 499, 47

    doi

  84. [99]

    Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, @doi 10.1888/0333750888/1940

    Sandage A., 2000, Malmquist Bias and Completeness Limits . Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, @doi 10.1888/0333750888/1940

    2000 doi

  85. [100]

    K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    Schawinski K., Thomas D., Sarzi M., Maraston C., Kaviraj S., Joo S.-J., Yi S. K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    2007

  86. [101]

    M., Edmondson E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010ApJ...714L.108S 714, L108

    Schawinski K., Dowlin N., Thomas D., Urry C. M., Edmondson E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010ApJ...714L.108S 714, L108

    2010 doi

  87. [102]

    Schawinski K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..889S 440, 889

    2014 doi

  88. [103]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012AJ....143..121S 143, 121

    Schiavon R. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012AJ....143..121S 143, 121

    2012 doi

  89. [104]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  90. [105]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/214 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..214S 152, 214

    Schombert J. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/214 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..214S 152, 214

    2016 doi

  91. [106]

    K., Ree C

    Sheen Y.-K., Yi S. K., Ree C. H., Jaff \'e Y., Demarco R., Treister E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827...32S 827, 32

    2016 doi

  92. [107]

    Singh R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322062 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  93. [108]

    Smol c i \'c V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/L43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009ApJ...699L..43S 699, L43

    2009 doi

  94. [109]

    A., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1188 , 434, 2503

    Sodré L., Ribeiro da Silva A., Santos W. A., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1188 , 434, 2503

    2013 doi

  95. [110]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    2001

  96. [111]

    Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005ApJ...620L..79S 620, L79

    2005 doi

  97. [112]

    C., Mateus a., Sodre L., Asari N

    Stasinska G., Fernandes R. C., Mateus a., Sodre L., Asari N. V., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10732.x , 371, 972

    2006

  98. [113]

    V., Vale Asari N., Cid Fernandes R., Sodr \'e L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv078 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..559S 449, 559

    Stasi \'n ska G., Costa-Duarte M. V., Vale Asari N., Cid Fernandes R., Sodr \'e L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv078 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..559S 449, 559

    2015 doi

  99. [114]

    Stoppacher D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1316S 486, 1316

    2019 doi

  100. [115]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  101. [116]

    Tantalo R., Chiosi C., Bressan A., Fagotto F., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...311..361T 311, 361

    1996

  102. [117]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.418.1587T 418, 1587

    Taylor E. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.418.1587T 418, 1587

    2011

  103. [118]

    W., 1977, Exploratory data analysis

    Tukey J. W., 1977, Exploratory data analysis . Addison-Wesley

    1977

  104. [119]

    Ucci G., Ferrara A., Pallottini A., Gallerani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.477.1484U 477, 1484

    2018 doi

  105. [120]

    Vazdekis A., Koleva M., Ricciardelli E., R \"o ck B., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2231 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3409V 463, 3409

    2016 doi

  106. [121]

    S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A.119V 615, A119

    Vink J. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A.119V 615, A119

    2018 doi

  107. [122]

    R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2382W 483, 2382

    Werle A., Cid Fernandes R., Vale Asari N., Bruzual G., Charlot S., Gonzalez Delgado R., Herpich F. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2382W 483, 2382

    2019 doi

  108. [123]

    Worthey G., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...95..107W 95, 107

    1994 doi

  109. [124]

    K., 2008, in Heber U., Jeffery C

    Yi S. K., 2008, in Heber U., Jeffery C. S., Napiwotzki R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 392, Hot Subdwarf Stars and Related Objects. p. 3 ( @eprint arXiv 0808.0254 )

    2008 arXiv

  110. [125]

    Yi S., Lee Y.-W., Woo J.-H., Park J.-H., Demarque P., Augustus Oemler J., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306856 , 513, 128

    1999 doi

  111. [126]

    K., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L.111Y 619, L111

    Yi S. K., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L.111Y 619, L111

    2005 doi

  112. [127]

    K., Lee J., Sheen Y.-K., Jeong H., Suh H., Oh K., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/22 , 195, 22

    Yi S. K., Lee J., Sheen Y.-K., Jeong H., Suh H., Oh K., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/22 , 195, 22

    2011 doi

  113. [128]

    H., Yi S

    Yoon S.-J., Lee Y.-W., Rey S.-C., Ree C. H., Yi S. K., 2004, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044325.31072.4d , 291, 223

    2004

Pith tools

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