Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The influence of a top-heavy integrated galactic IMF and dust on the chemical evolution of high-redshift starbursts

T0 review · 4 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 High-redshift starburst abundance patterns are equally consistent with top-heavy IMFs plus little dust or with Salpeter-like IMFs plus lots of dust.

desk verdict A useful model/data comparison that honestly exposes an IMF-vs-dust degeneracy in high-z starburst abundance patterns; the specific beta thresholds should not be over-read until the extrapolated cluster-mass relation is sensitivity-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06832 v3 pith:SCMBXTJQ submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.GA

Marco Palla , Francesco Calura , Francesca Matteucci , XiLong Fan , Fiorenzo Vincenzo , Elena Lacchin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords integratedgalacticinitialmassfunctionIGIMFchemicalevolutionhigh-redshiftstarburstsdustdepletionabundanceratiosembeddedcluster
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 claims that chemical evolution models of high-redshift starburst galaxies at $2\lesssim z\lesssim3$ can reproduce the observed C, N, O, Mg, Si, and Fe abundances only when either the integrated galactic initial mass function (IGIMF) is very top-heavy ($\beta<2$) and dust depletion is weak, or the IMF is Salpeter-like ($\beta\ge2$) and dust depletion is strong. It is the first such study to combine an IGIMF with a detailed dust evolution treatment, following elements in both the gas and dust phases. If the claim is right, abundance-ratio measurements alone cannot pin down the IMF of distant starbursts: the same data are consistent with extreme IMFs or with ordinary IMFs hidden behind dust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IGIMF, built by integrating a universal cluster IMF over the embedded cluster mass function, $\xi_{\rm ecl}(M_{\rm ecl})\propto M_{\rm ecl}^{-\beta}$, whose upper limit rises with star formation rate as $M_{\rm ecl,max}=8.5\times10^4(\psi/M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1})^{0.75}\,M_\odot$, capped at $10^7\,M_\odot$. Lower $\beta$ or higher SFR flattens the galaxy-wide IMF, increasing massive-star yields and dust production. This is coupled to a dust-evolution model that tracks dust production from supernovae and AGB stars, dust growth, destruction, and differential depletion of refractory elements; the dust treatment is what makes the $\beta$-degeneracy visible in the $[\mathrm{Si}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $[\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, and $[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}]$ diagrams.

What would settle it

Measure the dust mass and dust-to-metal ratio of the same lensed starbursts analyzed here with far-infrared or submillimetre observations. If those galaxies are dust-poor yet still show the observed high $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ and $[\mathrm{Si}/\mathrm{Fe}]$ ratios, the dust-depletion branch with $\beta\ge2$ is excluded and a very top-heavy IMF would be required. If instead independent stellar-population or lensing constraints fix a Salpeter IMF, the data demand dust depletion at the top of the modeled range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the abundance patterns observed in lensed and stacked high-redshift starbursts are reproduced by chemical evolution models in two alternative regimes: either a strongly top-heavy integrated galactic IMF, with slope $\beta<2$ for the embedded cluster mass function and modest dust depletion, or a Salpeter-like IMF ($\beta\ge2$) if dust depletion is significant. The models follow C, N, $\alpha$-elements, and Fe in both gas and dust. Without dust, the IGIMF, and especially low $\beta$, gives higher $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ and matches the observed patterns better than the Salpeter IMF, while with strong dust the Salpeter and $\beta=2$ cases fit the data. The paper further claims that $\beta=2$, a moderately top-heavy IGIMF, is the one case that reasonably satisfies both the abundance constraints and the dust mass constraints, and that dust builds faster and to larger masses in top-heavier IMF models.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that a galaxy's largest newborn star cluster grows with its star formation rate in the same way it does in nearby galaxies, and stops at ten million solar masses; if that is different at high redshift, the same model parameters produce different IMFs and the inferred constraints would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct consequence is that abundance ratios alone cannot distinguish a top-heavy IMF from dusty, Salpeter-like enrichment in high-redshift starbursts.
  • If dust is as important as the large dust masses observed at these redshifts suggest, extreme top-heavy IMFs ($\beta\le1.6$) are disfavoured, and $\beta=2$ or a Salpeter IMF matches the data.
  • A moderately top-heavy IGIMF can solve the dust-budget crisis: it produces dust masses above $10^8\,M_\odot$ within roughly 0.2 Gyr, matching high-redshift dust reservoirs.
  • Chemical evolution models using a Salpeter IMF underestimate $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ unless dust depletion is included, while IGIMF models raise both $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ and the star formation rate.
  • The extreme $\beta=1$ case fails to reproduce downsizing in star formation, so it is both unnecessary for the data and disfavoured by the model galaxy scaling relations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed degeneracy is real, abundance studies of high-redshift galaxies should quote IMF constraints as a two-parameter plane, IMF slope versus dust depletion, rather than a single IMF slope.
  • The same dust-IMF degeneracy may affect other probes, such as stellar mass-to-light ratios, supernova-rate ratios, and dust-budget arguments, possibly reconciling them without invoking an exotic IMF once depletion is modeled.
  • A testable extension is to measure dust-to-metal ratios and refractory depletion in the same lensed systems with far-infrared and submillimetre observations, which would break the degeneracy and select between $\beta<2$ and $\beta\ge2$.
  • If the star-formation-rate-to-maximum-cluster-mass relation evolves with redshift, the $\beta$ constraints derived here would map to different physical IMFs, connecting IGIMF studies to cluster formation physics at high redshift.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs one-zone chemical evolution models of high-redshift starbursts that incorporate the SFR-dependent integrated galactic initial mass function (IGIMF) of Weidner et al. (2011) and a detailed dust evolution model, and compares the predicted C, N, O, Mg, Si, and Fe abundances with a sample of lensed galaxies and composite spectra at z ~ 2-3. For three galaxy masses and three values of the embedded cluster mass function slope beta (1, 1.6, 2), together with a Salpeter IMF, the models are run under several dust prescriptions (reverse shock on/off, accretion, destruction). The main finding is a degeneracy: observed abundance patterns can be matched either by a strongly top-heavy IGIMF (beta < 2) with little dust or by a Salpeter-like/moderately top-heavy IMF (beta >= 2) with significant dust depletion. The paper also computes dust mass growth and argues that a moderate top-heavy IGIMF with beta = 2 solves the 'dust budget crisis' while satisfying the abundance constraints.

Significance. If the central degeneracy is real, it is important: it reframes claims of top-heavy IMFs in high-redshift starbursts by showing that dust depletion is a degenerate alternative, and it identifies beta = 2 as a compromise that can satisfy both abundance and dust mass constraints. The paper is valuable in combining IGIMF chemical evolution with a detailed treatment of dust production, growth, and destruction, in following multiple elements in both gas and dust phases, and in compiling a multi-indicator abundance dataset for lensed high-z galaxies. The clear visual demonstration of the degeneracy and the explicit model grid are strengths. However, the quantitative boundaries (beta < 2 versus beta >= 2) are not yet established: the key Mecl,max-SFR relation is extrapolated far beyond its calibration regime without sensitivity tests, the model-data comparison is qualitative with no fitting statistic, and the dust mass comparison is made against a generic galaxy sample rather than the specific systems in Table 2. The paper is therefore a promising and useful first step rather than a settled quantitative constraint.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (3) and (5)] The mapping from the free parameter beta to an actual IGIMF is controlled by Mecl,max = 8.5e4 (psi/Msun/yr)^0.75 Msun with a hard cap at 1e7 Msun, and both the high-mass slope alpha3(Mecl) in Eq. (5) and the upper stellar mass limit mmax depend on Mecl,max. At the SFRs reached in the M1E11 and M1E12 models (several hundred to ~1e3 Msun/yr), this relation is extrapolated far beyond the local embedded-cluster data used to calibrate it, and the cap becomes active for psi >~ 500 Msun/yr, which is precisely the regime of the highest-SFR systems in the sample (RCSGA, the 8 o'clock arc). The paper presents no sensitivity analysis of the exponent, normalization, or cap, and alternative IGIMF formulations (Yan et al. 2017; Jerabkova et al. 2018) are deferred to future work. The qualitative degeneracy between top-heaviness and dust depletion would probably survive changes to Eq. (3), but the specific quantitative thresholds 'beta < 2' and 'beta >= 2' are not robust unless this relation is tested or varied.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figs. 6-13 and Table 3] The comparison between model tracks and observed abundances is strictly qualitative: no goodness-of-fit or likelihood is defined, and model agreement is judged by visual overlap of the tracks with 1-sigma error bars. The sample is small and heterogeneous, mixing direct, R23, and N2 oxygen abundance determinations that the authors themselves note can differ by up to 0.2 dex. Because the central claim is a threshold statement about beta, the analysis needs a quantitative criterion (e.g., a chi-square or likelihood over the abundance ratios, with the systematic indicator offsets either modeled or propagated). Without such a criterion, the statements that beta < 2 is needed in the low-dust case and beta >= 2 in the dusty case are not yet supported beyond visual inspection.
  3. [Section 4.3, M1E12 IGIMF omission] The M1E12 models with the IGIMF are excluded from the abundance comparison because their SFRs are 'much larger than the ones observed in the systems of our dataset.' The observed SFRs in Table 2 are, however, derived assuming a Salpeter IMF, so this exclusion uses the very assumption the paper is testing; if the true IMF were top-heavy, the SFR estimates would shift. The authors should either demonstrate that the exclusion is robust to the IMF dependence of SFR estimators or include the M1E12 IGIMF models with a suitable recalibration of the observed SFRs.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Fig. 14] The conclusion that a moderate top-heavy IGIMF with beta = 2 'reasonably satisfies both the abundance and dust mass constraints' is not quantitatively supported on the dust side. The model dust masses are compared with a general Herschel galaxy sample at comparable redshift, not with dust mass measurements for the specific starbursts in Table 2; no dust masses are listed for those systems, and no criterion is specified for what counts as satisfying the dust mass constraint. The dust-mass discussion should either present observed Mdust values for the same objects or treat the dust evolution as a prediction to be tested, and the 'both constraints' statement should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] In the RCSGA 032727-132609 row, the log(N/O) entry is printed as '1.7 ± 0.02'; the value should almost certainly be negative (about -1.7) to be consistent with the other systems and with physical expectations, so please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 2.2.1 and Fig. 2 caption] There is a duplicated article in 'with a a galactic wind occurring', and the phrase 'devoids the galaxy from the residual gas' in the Fig. 2 caption should be 'deprives the galaxy of the residual gas' or similar.
  3. [Sections 3.6 and 3.7] The phrases 'from the Hα-detection' and 'from the [OII]-detection' should be 'from the Hα detection' and 'from the [OII] detection' (also occurring in Section 3.7).
  4. [Section 2.2.1] The aside that the large adopted core radius 'can also be interpreted as the natural core radius of Milgromian potentials' is not used anywhere in the paper and may distract; consider removing it or expanding it into a substantive discussion.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption refers to a 'confidence region' from Shapley et al. (2003), but the text describes it as the 'dark grey confidence region'; please define in the caption what the shaded region represents (e.g., the quoted range from the composite spectrum).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: beta and dust prescriptions are model inputs scanned against external abundance and dust data, not fitted or derived from the same observables.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model-grid comparison, not an inversion or fit. The slope beta and the dust prescriptions (reverse shock, growth, destruction) are free inputs, and the observed abundances (Table 3) and dust masses (Calura et al. 2017; Pozzi et al. 2020) are external benchmarks. The conclusion that either a very top-heavy IGIMF (beta<2) with little dust or a Salpeter-like IMF (beta>=2) with significant dust reproduces the observed [alpha/Fe] patterns is a readout of the computed grid, not a prediction whose output is equivalent to an input. The IGIMF relations (Eqs. 2-5) are adopted from the external Weidner/Kroupa framework, not from the present authors' own prior results, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the choice. Self-citations (e.g., Calura et al. 2010; De Masi et al. 2018; Palla et al. 2020) supply model machinery and prior context but do not carry the inference. The only mildly self-referential element is that the observed SFRs in Table 2 are Salpeter-based and are used to omit the M1E12 IGIMF models from the abundance plots; however, the abundance-ratio conclusions rest on the M3E10 and M1E11 models and are not statistically forced by that selection. The extrapolation of Eq. (3) to z~2-3 is a legitimate robustness concern, but it is an external-input uncertainty, not circularity. The paper also explicitly flags the ad hoc primary-N yield as a limitation and does not base its refractory-element conclusions on it. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data and contains no circular step requiring a score above 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's constraints on beta depend on a chain of adopted empirical relations and yield prescriptions. Most free parameters are chosen from prior work rather than fitted to the high-z abundances, but the beta and dust branches are explored by discrete variation rather than statistical inference. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • ECMF slope beta = 1, 1.6, 2 (discrete grid; no best-fit value)
    Controls the top-heaviness of the IGIMF; the paper scans three values and infers which ranges match data depending on dust treatment, without a statistical fit.
  • Star formation efficiency nu = 5, 10, 20 Gyr^-1
    Set per galaxy mass (M3E10, M1E11, M1E12) from earlier 'inverse wind' models; strongly affects SFR history and wind onset.
  • Infall timescale tau_inf = 0.5, 0.4, 0.2 Gyr
    Chosen per galaxy mass; controls gas supply and chemical enrichment rate.
  • Effective radius Reff = 2, 3, 10 kpc
    Sets the gas binding energy and thus the galactic wind time; from observed systems, not fitted to abundance data.
  • SN feedback thermalization fractions = few percent of CC-SN blast energy; 3% of massive-star wind energy
    Adopted from De Masi et al. (2018); regulates when the galactic wind stops star formation, a key determinant of final [alpha/Fe].
  • Dust growth/destruction reference parameters = nH=100 cm^-3, a=0.1 micron, T=50 K, epsilon=0.1
    Reference values from Asano et al. (2013); determine the strength of dust depletion, the second branch of the central degeneracy.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Galaxies form stars in embedded clusters distributed as a single power law with slope beta (Eq. 2), and the stellar IMF within clusters is canonical (Kroupa, Eq. 4).
    Adopted from IGIMF theory (Kroupa & Weidner 2003; Weidner et al. 2011); not derived here, but underpins the entire calculation.
  • domain assumption The maximum embedded cluster mass grows with SFR as Mecl,max = 8.5e4 psi^0.75 M_sun (Eq. 3), capped at 10^7 M_sun.
    This empirical relation is what makes the IGIMF SFR-dependent and top-heavy at high SFR; if wrong at high z, the beta constraints collapse.
  • domain assumption High-z starbursts can be modeled as one-zone open boxes with exponential infall, Schmidt-Kennicutt SFR, and a thermal-energy galactic wind (Section 2.2.1).
    Standard chemical evolution framework from Matteucci (1994) and De Masi et al. (2018); simplifies geometry and mixing.
  • domain assumption Adopted stellar yields (van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997; Francois et al. 2004; Iwamoto et al. 1999) are correct for LIMS, CC-SNe, and SNe Ia.
    External nucleosynthesis inputs; N yields in particular are highly uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper Primary nitrogen is produced by all massive stars (Matteucci 1986 yields), described by the authors as 'an ad hoc hypothesis' needed to explain observed N/O (Section 4.3.1).
    Without this choice, the models fail to match N/O in three of four data points; it is an added assumption, not an independent constraint.
  • domain assumption Type Ia SNe do not produce dust, and dust growth/destruction follow Asano et al. (2013) prescriptions.
    Supported by cited literature, but affects the dust-depletion branch of the degeneracy.
  • domain assumption Dark matter halo is ten times the luminous mass and has a core radius ten times Reff.
    Large core radii are not generated in self-consistent DM models; the authors acknowledge this (Section 2.2.1), but the wind timing depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The influence of a top-heavy integrated galactic IMF and dust on the chemical evolution of high-redshift starbursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCMBXTJQ

@misc{pith2026190806832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The influence of a top-heavy integrated galactic IMF and dust on the chemical evolution of high-redshift starbursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCMBXTJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06832}
}
abstract

We study the effects of the integrated galactic initial mass function (IGIMF) and dust evolution on the abundance patterns of high redshift starburst galaxies. In our chemical models, the rapid collapse of gas clouds triggers an intense and rapid star formation episode, which lasts until the onset of a galactic wind, powered by the thermal energy injected by stellar winds and supernova explosions. Our models follow the evolution of several chemical elements (C, N, $\alpha$-elements and Fe) both in the gas and dust phases. %The most recent stellar yield and dust prescriptions are adopted. We test different values of $\beta$, the slope of the embedded cluster mass function for the IGIMF, where lower $\beta$ values imply a more top-heavy initial mass function (IMF). The computed abundances are compared to high-quality abundance measurements obtained in lensed galaxies and from composite spectra in large samples of star-forming galaxies in the redshift range $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 3$. The adoption of the IGIMF causes a sensible increase of the rate of star formation with respect to a standard Salpeter IMF, with a strong impact on chemical evolution. We find that in order to reproduce the observed abundance patterns in these galaxies, either we need a very top-heavy IGIMF ($\beta < 2$) or large amounts of dust. In particular, if dust is important, the IGIMF should have $\beta \ge 2$, which means an IMF slightly more top-heavy than the Salpeter one. The evolution of the dust mass with time for galaxies of different mass and IMF is also computed, highlighting that the dust amount increases with a top-heavier IGIMF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Behaviour of the IGIMF adopted in this paper as a function of stellar mass and SFR for different values of β, namely the slope of the ECMF. Upper panel: β = 1; central panel: β = 1.6; lower panel: β = 2. In each panel, the four solid lines are the IGIMFs computed considering SFR=1M yr−1 ,10M yr−1 , 100M yr−1 , 1000M yr−1 . The black dashed lines indicate the Salpeter (1955) IMF. MNRAS 000, 1–21 (2020) [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From top-left corner, clockwise: time evolution of the SFRs, stellar mass, CC-SN rate, energetic budget, gas mass and Type Ia SN rates obtained for the M3E10 model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lines are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lines are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: log(N/O) vs. log(O/H)+12 adopting Matteucci (1986) yields for N (thick lines) and Meynet & Maeder (2002) (thin lines) compared with abundances measured in galaxies of the sample of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: log(C/O) vs. log(O/H)+12 computed without taking into account dust depletion and compared with abundances mea￾sured in galaxies of the sample of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [Mg/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] without accounting for dust de￾pletion compared with abundances measured in galaxies of the sample of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Dust mass as a function of time for our models computed with a Salpeter (1955) IMF (blue lines) and with W11 IGIMF with β = 1 (green lines), β = 1.6 (magenta lines) and β = 2 (red lines). In the left, middle and right panel we show our results computed for the M3E10 (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn: A Cloud-Scale Star Formation Model Unifying Variable SFE, IMFs, and Stochasticity

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cloud-based semi-analytic model shows that a top-heavy stellar initial mass function and a cloud-property-dependent star-formation efficiency, rather than cloud mass or density, most strongly shape the UV luminosity...

  2. Interstellar dust production, destruction and effects of dust depletion in galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper reviews dust production, destruction and growth processes in galaxies, compiles literature data on comoving dust mass density, presents evidence for and against interstellar dust growth, and identifies the h...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Lin H., Tucker D., Buckley-Geer E., Kubik D., Diehl T., Annis J., Frieman J., 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts

    Allam S. S., Lin H., Tucker D., Buckley-Geer E., Kubik D., Diehl T., Annis J., Frieman J., 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 99.02

    2007

  2. [2]

    S., Takeuchi T

    Asano R. S., Takeuchi T. T., Hirashita H., Inoue A. K., 2013, @doi [Earth, Planets, and Space] 10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EP&S...65..213A 65, 213

    doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 2013

  3. [3]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    J., Tacconi L

    Baker A. J., Tacconi L. J., Genzel R., Lehnert M. D., Lutz D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..125B 604, 125

    doi:10.1086/381798 2004

  5. [7]

    B., Rigby J

    Bayliss M. B., Rigby J. R., Sharon K., Wuyts E., Florian M., Gladders M. D., Johnson T., Oguri M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790..144B 790, 144

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/144 2014

  6. [8]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671L...9B 671, L9

    doi:10.1086/524948 2007

  7. [9]

    Bianchi S., Schneider R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..973B 378, 973

    arXiv 2007

  8. [10]

    Bradamante F., Matteucci F., D'Ercole A., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...337..338B 337, 338

    1998

Show all 104 references
  1. [11]

    Calura F., Matteucci F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508147 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..889C 652, 889

    2006 doi

  2. [13]

    Calura F., Pipino A., Matteucci F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...479..669C 479, 669

    2008 doi

  3. [15]

    Calura F., Gilli R., Vignali C., Pozzi F., Pipino A., Matteucci F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2765C 438, 2765

    2014 doi

  4. [16]

    Calura F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...54C 465, 54

    2017 doi

  5. [18]

    Chiappini C., Romano D., Matteucci F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339...63C 339, 63

    2003

  6. [20]

    Christensen L., et al., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22007.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.1973C 427, 1973

    2012

  7. [21]

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P., 2012a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...69C 747, 69

    doi

  8. [22]

    G., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    doi

  9. [24]

    De Masi C., Matteucci F., Vincenzo F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3044 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5259D 474, 5259

    2018 doi

  10. [25]

    Dell'Agli F., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Schneider R., Ventura P., La Franca F., Valiante R., Marini E., Di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4431D 467, 4431

    2017 doi

  11. [26]

    Dessauges-Zavadsky M., D'Odorico S., Schaerer D., Modigliani A., Tapken C., Vernet J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913337 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  12. [27]

    Dwek E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501..643D 501, 643

    1998 doi

  13. [28]

    W., Belokurov V., Warren S

    Dye S., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., Warren S. J., Hewett P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13401.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388..384D 388, 384

    2008

  14. [29]

    Ferrara A., Viti S., Ceccarelli C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463L.112F 463, L112

    2016 doi

  15. [30]

    Ferreras I., Weidner C., Vazdekis A., La Barbera F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448L..82F 448, L82

    2015 doi

  16. [31]

    L., Papovich C., Rudnick G., Egami E., Le Floc'h E., Rieke M

    Finkelstein S. L., Papovich C., Rudnick G., Egami E., Le Floc'h E., Rieke M. J., Rigby J. R., Willmer C. N. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/376 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..376F 700, 376

    2009 doi

  17. [32]

    Fran c ois P., Matteucci F., Cayrel R., Spite M., Spite F., Chiappini C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  18. [33]

    Gall C., Hjorth J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...62G 868, 62

    2018 doi

  19. [34]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-011-0043-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&ARv..19...43G 19, 43

    Gall C., Hjorth J., Andersen A. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-011-0043-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&ARv..19...43G 19, 43

    2011 doi

  20. [35]

    R., Skillman E

    Garnett D. R., Skillman E. D., Dufour R. J., Peimbert M., Torres-Peimbert S., Terlevich R., Terlevich E., Shields G. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...443...64G 443, 64

    1995 doi

  21. [36]

    K., Matteucci F., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/291.1.L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.291L...8G 291, L8

    Gibson B. K., Matteucci F., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/291.1.L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.291L...8G 291, L8

    1997 doi

  22. [37]

    Gioannini L., Matteucci F., Vladilo G., Calura F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2343 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..985G 464, 985

    2017 doi

  23. [38]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...96G 760, 96

    Gomez H. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...96G 760, 96

    2012 doi

  24. [39]

    Grieco V., Matteucci F., Calura F., Boissier S., Longo F., D'Elia V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1054G 444, 1054

    2014 doi

  25. [40]

    N., Shapley A

    Hainline K. N., Shapley A. E., Kornei K. A., Pettini M., Buckley-Geer E., Allam S. S., Tucker D. L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701...52H 701, 52

    2009 doi

  26. [41]

    Israelian G., Ecuvillon A., Rebolo R., Garc \' a-L \'o pez R., Bonifacio P., Molaro P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20047132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..649I 421, 649

    2004 doi

  27. [42]

    R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..125..439I 125, 439

    Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..125..439I 125, 439

    1999 doi

  28. [43]

    Je r \'a bkov \'a T., Kroupa P., Dabringhausen J., Hilker M., Bekki K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..53J 608, A53

    2017 doi

  29. [44]

    Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A..39J 620, A39

    Je r \'a bkov \'a T., Hasani Zonoozi A., Kroupa P., Beccari G., Yan Z., Vazdekis A., Zhang Z. Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A..39J 620, A39

    2018 doi

  30. [45]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  31. [47]

    Kroupa P., 2002, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1067524 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Sci...295...82K 295, 82

    2002 doi

  32. [48]

    Kroupa P., Weidner C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598.1076K 598, 1076

    2003 doi

  33. [49]

    G., de Carvalho R

    La Barbera F., Ferreras I., Vazdekis A., de la Rosa I. G., de Carvalho R. R., Trevisan M., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Ricciardelli E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.3017L 433, 3017

    2013 doi

  34. [50]

    arXiv:1911.08450

    Lacchin E., Matteucci F., Vincenzo F., Palla M., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191108450L p. arXiv:1911.08450

    2019 arXiv

  35. [51]

    J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA

    2003 arXiv

  36. [53]

    L \"u ghausen F., Famaey B., Kroupa P., Angus G., Combes F., Gentile G., Tiret O., Zhao H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2846L 432, 2846

    2013 doi

  37. [54]

    L \"u ghausen F., Famaey B., Kroupa P., 2015, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/cjp-2014-0168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CaJPh..93..232L 93, 232

    2015 doi

  38. [55]

    A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...493..180M 493, 180

    Massey P., Hunter D. A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...493..180M 493, 180

    1998 doi

  39. [56]

    Matteucci F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/221.4.911 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.221..911M 221, 911

    1986 doi

  40. [57]

    Matteucci F., 1994, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A

    1994

  41. [58]

    Matteucci F., 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies , @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1

    2012 doi

  42. [59]

    Matteucci F., Greggio L., 1986, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A

    1986

  43. [60]

    Matteucci F., Pipino A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569L..69M 569, L69

    2002 doi

  44. [61]

    Matteucci F., Recchi S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322472 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...558..351M 558, 351

    2001 doi

  45. [62]

    Mattsson L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18447.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..781M 414, 781

    2011

  46. [63]

    arXiv:1505.04758

    Mattsson L., 2015, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150504758M p. arXiv:1505.04758

    2015 arXiv

  47. [64]

    T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151....5M 151, 5

    Megeath S. T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151....5M 151, 5

    2016 doi

  48. [65]

    Meneghetti M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3177M 472, 3177

    2017 doi

  49. [66]

    Meynet G., Maeder A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390..561M 390, 561

    2002 doi

  50. [67]

    Nittler L. R., O'D. Alexander C. M., Liu N., Wang J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab61f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L..24N 856, L24

    2018 doi

  51. [68]

    Nozawa T., Maeda K., Kozasa T., Tanaka M., Nomoto K., Umeda H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...45N 736, 45

    2011 doi

  52. [69]

    Palla M., Matteucci F., Calura F., Longo F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889....4P 889, 4

    2020 doi

  53. [70]

    C., Adelberger K

    Pettini M., Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Dickinson M., Giavalisco M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308176 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528...96P 528, 96

    2000 doi

  54. [71]

    E., Steidel C

    Pettini M., Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., Cuby J.-G., Dickinson M., Moorwood A. F. M., Adelberger K. L., Giavalisco M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321403 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..981P 554, 981

    2001 doi

  55. [72]

    A., Steidel C

    Pettini M., Rix S. A., Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Hunt M. P., Shapley A. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339355 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..742P 569, 742

    2002 doi

  56. [73]

    Pflamm-Altenburg J., Weidner C., Kroupa P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523033 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1550P 671, 1550

    2007 doi

  57. [75]

    Pipino A., Matteucci F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A..98P 530, A98

    2011 doi

  58. [76]

    Pipino A., Matteucci F., Borgani S., Biviano A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00136-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002NewA....7..227P 7, 227

    2002 doi

  59. [77]

    L., Matteucci F., Calura F., Silva L., Granato G., Maiolino R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014843 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    Pipino A., Fan X. L., Matteucci F., Calura F., Silva L., Granato G., Maiolino R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014843 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  60. [78]

    Pozzi F., Calura F., Zamorani G., Delvecchio I., Gruppioni C., Santini P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5073P 491, 5073

    2020 doi

  61. [79]

    M., Pettini M., Shapley A

    Quider A. M., Pettini M., Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15234.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1263Q 398, 1263

    2009

  62. [80]

    Recchi S., Matteucci F., D'Ercole A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04189.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..800R 322, 800

    2001

  63. [81]

    Recchi S., Calura F., Kroupa P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811472 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  64. [82]

    K., Kroupa P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437..994R 437, 994

    Recchi S., Calura F., Gibson B. K., Kroupa P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437..994R 437, 994

    2014 doi

  65. [83]

    R., Wuyts E., Gladders M

    Rigby J. R., Wuyts E., Gladders M. D., Sharon K., Becker G. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/59 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...59R 732, 59

    2011 doi

  66. [84]

    I., Tosi M., Matteucci F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A..32R 522, A32

    Romano D., Karakas A. I., Tosi M., Matteucci F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A..32R 522, A32

    2010 doi

  67. [85]

    Y., Papadopoulos P

    Romano D., Matteucci F., Zhang Z. Y., Papadopoulos P. P., Ivison R. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..401R 470, 401

    2017 doi

  68. [86]

    Rowlands K., Gomez H. L., Dunne L., Arag \'o n-Salamanca A., Dye S., Maddox S., da Cunha E., van der Werf P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1040R 441, 1040

    2014 doi

  69. [87]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  70. [88]

    A., Ferreras I., Negri A., Dalla Vecchia C., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0955-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs.tmp....1S p

    Salvador-Rusi \ n ol N., Vazdekis A., La Barbera F., Beasley M. A., Ferreras I., Negri A., Dalla Vecchia C., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0955-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs.tmp....1S p. 1

    2019 doi

  71. [89]

    Schmidt M., 1959, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146614 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959ApJ...129..243S 129, 243

    1959 doi

  72. [90]

    P., Bender R., Hopp U., Belloni P., Ziegler B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01443.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.298..945S 298, 945

    Seitz S., Saglia R. P., Bender R., Hopp U., Belloni P., Ziegler B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01443.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.298..945S 298, 945

    1998

  73. [91]

    E., Steidel C

    Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., Pettini M., Adelberger K. L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/373922 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...588...65S 588, 65

    2003 doi

  74. [92]

    I., Chary R.-R., Colbert J., Frayer D

    Siana B., Teplitz H. I., Chary R.-R., Colbert J., Frayer D. T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592682 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689...59S 689, 59

    2008 doi

  75. [93]

    Spite M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...430..655S 430, 655

    2005 doi

  76. [95]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..165S 795, 165

    Steidel C. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..165S 795, 165

    2014 doi

  77. [96]

    C., Strom A

    Steidel C. C., Strom A. L., Pettini M., Rudie G. C., Reddy N. A., Trainor R. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/159 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..159S 826, 159

    2016 doi

  78. [97]

    I., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312595 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533L..65T 533, L65

    Teplitz H. I., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312595 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533L..65T 533, L65

    2000 doi

  79. [98]

    Thies I., Pflamm-Altenburg J., Kroupa P., Marks M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...72T 800, 72

    2015 doi

  80. [100]

    Valiante R., Schneider R., Salvadori S., Gallerani S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2442V 444, 2442

    2014 doi

  81. [101]

    Vanzella E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4304V 467, 4304

    2017 doi

  82. [102]

    Vincenzo F., Kobayashi C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610L..16V 610, L16

    2018 doi

  83. [103]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv357 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1327V 449, 1327

    Vincenzo F., Matteucci F., Recchi S., Calura F., McWilliam A., Lanfranchi G. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv357 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1327V 449, 1327

    2015 doi

  84. [104]

    Vincenzo F., Belfiore F., Maiolino R., Matteucci F., Ventura P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.3466V 458, 3466

    2016 doi

  85. [105]

    Vladilo G., Gioannini L., Matteucci F., Palla M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8dc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..127V 868, 127

    2018 doi

  86. [107]

    Weidner C., Kroupa P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429867 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...625..754W 625, 754

    2005 doi

  87. [108]

    S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07758.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1503W 350, 1503

    Weidner C., Kroupa P., Larsen S. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07758.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1503W 350, 1503

    2004

  88. [109]

    Weidner C., Kroupa P., Pflamm-Altenburg J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17959.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412..979W 412, 979

    2011

  89. [110]

    Weidner C., Ferreras I., Vazdekis A., La Barbera F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1445 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.2274W 435, 2274

    2013 doi

  90. [111]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192237 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..181W 101, 181

    1995 doi

  91. [112]

    Wuyts E., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1182 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724.1182W 724, 1182

    2010 doi

  92. [113]

    Yan Z., Jerabkova T., Kroupa P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A.126Y 607, A126

    2017 doi

  93. [114]

    Yan Z., Jerabkova T., Kroupa P., Vazdekis A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..93Y 629, A93

    2019 doi

  94. [115]

    Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E., Bechtold J., Carlberg R. G., Cuillandre J. C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....111.1783Y 111, 1783

    1996 doi

  95. [116]

    J., Papadopoulos P

    Zhang Z.-Y., Romano D., Ivison R. J., Papadopoulos P. P., Matteucci F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0196-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.558..260Z 558, 260

    2018 doi

  96. [117]

    B., Groenewegen M

    van den Hoek L. B., Groenewegen M. A. T., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1997162 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A

    1997 doi

Pith tools

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