Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Importance of modelling the nebular continuum in galaxy spectra

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that once the median optical nebular contribution passes about 8% (rest-frame EW(H$\alpha$) $\simeq$ 500 Å), spectral fits that model only starlight systematically overestimate stellar masses by $\sim$0.6 dex on average…

desk verdict A practical, usable threshold for when nebular continuum matters; the mass effect is real and well-controlled, but the abstract overstates the metallicity result and the X_neb scale rests on FADO. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12060 v2 pith:BEX2PCI2 submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.GA

Henrique Miranda , Ciro Pappalardo , José Afonso , Polychronis Papaderos , Catarina Lobo , Ana Paulino-Afonso , Rodrigo Carvajal , Israel Matute
show 2 more authors
Patricio Lagos Davi Barbosa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords nebularcontinuumspectralfittingstellarmassequivalentwidthstar-forminggalaxiesFADOSTARLIGHThigh-redshift
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

The paper aims to put a number on when the nebular continuum becomes impossible to ignore in galaxy spectral fitting. Fitting 500 star-forming SDSS-DR7 galaxies with FADO (stellar plus nebular, self-consistent) and STARLIGHT (pure stellar), it finds that for a median optical nebular contribution $X_{neb}\gtrsim8\%$, corresponding to rest-frame EW(H$\alpha$)$\simeq$500 Å, the two codes diverge: pure-stellar fits return stellar masses higher by $\sim$0.6 dex on average and up to 2 dex in the most extreme cases. It also establishes that EW(H$\alpha$) and EW(H$\beta$) are tight linear tracers of $X_{neb}$, giving observers a simple screen for when nebular modelling matters. If the threshold holds, most galaxies with $M_*\sim10^7$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$ will cross it on average at $z\sim2$–6, making nebular continuum modelling a standard requirement for high-redshift spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the median optical nebular contribution $X_{neb}$, defined as the median over 3000–9000 Å of the ratio of FADO's nebular continuum to its total continuum. FADO, the reference code, self-consistently fits stellar and nebular emission using standard photoionisation prescriptions (two-photon, free-free and free-bound emission) and ensures the best-fit stellar population reproduces the observed nebular features. STARLIGHT, applied with a purely stellar base, is the contrast case. The argument is carried by binning the sample by rest-frame EW(H$\alpha$) and by the FADO-versus-STARLIGHT difference in derived properties, with differences above 0.2 dex treated as significant.

What would settle it

Refit the same SDSS spectra with a second, independently calibrated photoionisation model for the nebular continuum and compare the resulting $X_{neb}$ and stellar masses with FADO and STARLIGHT. If the independent model does not yield comparable nebular fractions and does not reproduce the $\sim$0.6 dex lower masses relative to pure-stellar fits above EW(H$\alpha$)$\simeq$500 Å, the threshold as stated is not robust to the choice of nebular model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the optical nebular continuum is a first-order ingredient, not a small correction, once it contributes a median $\sim$8% of the 3000–9000 Å continuum. Comparing FADO and STARLIGHT on identical spectra, the derived stellar masses agree for EW(H$\alpha$)$<$100 Å, then diverge systematically above the threshold: for EW(H$\alpha$)$\geq$500 Å, more than 70% of galaxies get pure-stellar masses higher by an average of $\sim$0.6 dex, reaching up to 2 dex for EW(H$\alpha$)$\geq$1000 Å, with mass-weighted stellar ages also affected in the most extreme bin. The mechanism is that a flat nebular continuum makes stellar-only codes compensate with older stellar populations, and splitting the observed continuum into stellar plus nebular components lowers the stellar light and its mass-to-light ratio, hence the lower masses. A control run with FADO in pure-stellar mode reproduces the same threshold, indicating the difference is driven by the nebular component rather than only by code-specific behaviour.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that FADO's nebular continuum model is the true one; if its prescription for how ionised gas radiates is biased, the measured nebular fractions, the 8% threshold, and the claimed $\sim$0.6 dex mass overestimates would all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For galaxies with rest-frame EW(H$\alpha$)$\geq$500 Å (or $\sim$375 Å under pseudo-continuum definitions), stellar masses from pure-stellar fits are overestimated by $\sim$0.6 dex on average and up to 2 dex.
  • EW(H$\alpha$) and EW(H$\beta$) can be used to estimate $X_{neb}$ through the paper's linear relations, so a single emission-line measurement can flag when nebular modelling is required.
  • On average, galaxies with stellar masses between $10^7$ and $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ reach the threshold at $z\sim$2–6, implying that high-redshift surveys should routinely include nebular continuum in their spectral models.
  • Mass-weighted stellar ages diverge significantly for EW(H$\alpha$)$\geq$1000 Å, while light-weighted ages and metallicities show weaker or mixed differences; stellar mass is the cleanest property affected.
  • Below the threshold, differences between the codes are within the 0.2 dex significance level, but the paper notes that subtle effects may still exist and are hard to assess.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether its threshold transfers to photometric SED fitting, but if it does, galaxies at $z>2$ whose stellar masses are derived from pure-stellar templates would be systematically overestimated whenever their rest-optical EWs are high.
  • A practical extension the authors leave implicit: the EW(H$\alpha$)$\simeq$500 Å (or 375 Å) cut could serve as a trigger in large surveys, sending only galaxies above it to self-consistent nebular fits and keeping stellar-only fits for the rest.
  • Because the control compares FADO with itself, the absolute location of the threshold is partly contingent on FADO's nebular prescription; an independent multi-code comparison would show how much of the 8% value is physical rather than code-specific.
  • If future JWST rest-optical spectra confirm the same $X_{neb}$–EW relation at $z>3$, the $\sim$0.6 dex mass correction would propagate into derived SFRs and specific star formation rates, potentially shifting high-redshift scaling relations.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper seeks to establish a quantitative threshold for when neglecting the nebular continuum in optical spectral fitting leads to significant biases in derived galaxy properties. Using 500 star-forming SDSS-DR7 galaxies deliberately spread across more than two decades in EW(Halpha), the authors fit each spectrum with FADO (full-consistency stellar+nebular modelling) and STARLIGHT (stellar-only), and additionally run FADO in pure-stellar mode as a control. They find that the rest-frame EW(Halpha) and EW(Hbeta) are tight tracers of the median optical nebular contribution X_neb, and claim that for X_neb of about 8% (EW(Halpha) about 500 A, or about 375 A in a pseudo-continuum convention) the neglect of nebular emission becomes significant. Above this threshold, STARLIGHT overestimates stellar masses by 0.6 dex on average and up to 2 dex in the most extreme cases, with additional effects on age and metallicity. The paper then extrapolates the threshold to high redshift, arguing that galaxies with M* = 10^7-10^11 Msun cross it on average at z about 2-6.

Significance. If the threshold result holds, it provides a practical, citable benchmark for observers and modellers: a rest-frame EW(Halpha) cut that separates regimes where nebular continuum modelling is or is not required. This is especially timely for JWST and upcoming MOONS spectroscopy of high-redshift star-forming galaxies. The study has genuine methodological strengths: both codes are applied with the same spectral basis and extinction law, a second SSP library is used as a robustness check, and the FADO pure-stellar-mode comparison (Fig. 11) helps separate the effect of including nebular emission from code-specific fitting differences. The tracer relations in Eqs. (1)-(5) are simple and usable. The main weaknesses are statistical: the headline threshold is tied to manually chosen bin edges rather than a formal breakpoint, the paper's own 'significant difference' criterion is applied inconsistently, and the absolute X_neb scale is calibrated entirely on FADO's nebular prescription without external validation. These issues are addressable in revision, and I do not see grounds for rejection.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The threshold criterion is not consistently applied. Under the paper's own definition of a significant difference (difference larger than 0.2 dex in either direction), the 100<=EW(Halpha)<500 A bin already contains 55% significantly different galaxies for M_curr (21% FD, 34% ST) and 57% for M_ever (22% FD, 35% ST). Thus, a statistically significant difference between the two codes is identifiable well below EW(Halpha)=500 A; what actually changes at 500 A is that the differences become one-sided, with STARLIGHT overestimating mass for more than 70% of galaxies. The statement that 'we can identify the value EW(Halpha)=500 A as the threshold for which a statistically significant difference between the two codes is identifiable' conflates the presence of significant differences with a directional bias. A formal change-point or sliding-window analysis of the continuous FADO-STARLIGHT difference as a function of EW(Halpha), with an uncertainty on the breakpoint, is needed to support the threshold claim.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figs. 7-10; Eq. (1)] The 500 A value is not fitted; it is one of the manually chosen bin edges (100, 500, 1000 A), and no uncertainty is quoted for the threshold or for its X_neb equivalent. Because Eq. (1) is steep in log-log space, the mapping to X_neb about 8% inherits a nontrivial uncertainty, and based on Table 1 the transition could plausibly lie anywhere within the 100-500 A interval. Please derive the threshold and its confidence interval from the continuous relation between the FADO-STARLIGHT difference and EW(Halpha) or X_neb, and quote the corresponding uncertainty on X_neb.
  3. [Section 3 and Section 6.1] The absolute calibration of X_neb, and therefore Eq. (1), the 8% threshold, and the 0.6-2 dex mass-bias estimates, rests entirely on FADO's nebular continuum prescription (Krueger et al. 1995; two-photon, free-free, and free-bound emission). The pure-stellar-mode control in Fig. 11 is a good check that including a nebular component matters, but it cannot detect a systematic error in FADO's nebular model itself because both modes share the same prescription. If FADO systematically over- or under-predicts the nebular continuum for a given stellar population, the reported X_neb scale and threshold would shift. This is a correctness-risk concern rather than a claim of internal circularity: the internal comparison is valid, but the absolute scale is model-dependent. I recommend validating X_neb against an independent photoionisation calculation (e.g., Cloudy run with the same ionising SEDs) or against direct nebular-continuum measurements, and at minimum stating this limitation explicitly and assessing how plausible variations in the nebular prescription would move the threshold.
  4. [Section 6.1, Table 1, and Fig. 9] The paper's own significance criterion does not support the claim that neglecting nebular emission significantly affects stellar metallicity. For light- and mass-weighted metallicity, the mean FADO-STARLIGHT differences are 0.03 and 0.003 dex, and even in the EW(Halpha)>=1000 A bin the light-weighted mean difference reaches only 0.09 dex. The fractions of galaxies with significant differences in the highest bins never exceed 51% for Z_L and 49% for Z_M, and the distributions retain a strong peak near zero. The abstract's statement that stellar mass, age, and metallicity are all significantly impacted is therefore an overclaim. The age-metallicity degeneracy argument in Sect. 6.1 is an inference rather than a direct measurement; please either soften the conclusions or provide direct evidence that the fitted stellar populations change above the threshold in a way that propagates systematically to the metallicity estimates.
  5. [Section 6.1 and Section 3] The conversion of the threshold to a pseudo-continuum EW appears arithmetically inconsistent. The text states that FADO's EW estimates are on average 0.1 dex (about 25%) higher than pseudo-continuum-based estimates. Starting from 500 A, dividing by 10^0.1 = 1.26 gives about 397 A, whereas applying a 25% reduction directly gives 375 A; the paper quotes 375 A. Please clarify which operation is intended and re-derive the scaled thresholds for Hbeta, [OIII] lambda5007, and HeI lambda5876 quoted in the summary, since these values will be used by observers who adopt pseudo-continuum conventions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There is a grammatical issue in the abstract ('it has not been established a clear threshold'), and the text contains the typo 'redshfit' in Section 1 and again in Section 6.2.
  2. [Equations (1)-(5) and Section 6.1] The quoted thresholds in terms of EW(Hbeta), sSFR, EW([OIII] lambda5007), and EW(HeI lambda5876) are derived by plugging X_neb=8% into the fitted relations, but no uncertainties are propagated from the fit parameters. Please provide confidence intervals for these derived threshold values.
  3. [Section 6.2, Fig. 12] The construction of Fig. 12 is described only verbally: the Faisst et al. (2016) redshift evolution is normalized using mean EW(Halpha) values from Cardoso et al. (2022) in stellar-mass bins. Please specify the bin definitions, the number of galaxies per bin, and how the scatter in the EW(Halpha)-redshift relation is treated, so the claimed z about 2-6 crossing can be assessed quantitatively.
  4. [Section 3] The choice of 0.2 dex as the 'significant difference' threshold is reasonable and well referenced, but it is introduced after the analysis rather than as a pre-registered criterion; a sentence noting that the qualitative conclusions are not sensitive to using 0.15 or 0.25 dex would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EW(Hα)≈500 Å threshold rests on an independent FADO-vs-STARLIGHT comparison, and the X_neb≈8% value is an empirical calibration rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is established by comparing FADO full-consistency fits with STARLIGHT pure-stellar fits on SDSS-DR7 galaxies, binned by EW(Hα): the paper states in Sect. 5.1 that 'we can identify the value EW(Hα)=500 Å as the threshold for which a statistically significant difference between the two codes is identifiable.' This threshold is an observed bin-edge effect in a two-code comparison, not a parameter fitted to produce the conclusion. The subsequent conversion to X_neb≈8% uses Eq. 1, a linear fit between FADO's X_neb and FADO's EW(Hα) presented in Sect. 4.1; this is an empirical calibration between two outputs of the same code rather than a prediction of a fitted input, so it does not reduce the claim to its inputs by construction. The FADO pure-stellar-mode control (Sect. 6.1) tests the effect of adding the nebular component within the same fitting machinery and supports the attribution of the FADO/STARLIGHT differences to nebular emission. Reliance on FADO's nebular prescriptions (Krüger et al. 1995) is an external physical input, and any bias there would be a correctness risk, not circularity. The paper contains heavy self-citation to FADO's development and prior FADO applications, but these are normal tool citations and are not load-bearing in the sense of a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that sub-threshold effects may exist ('we note that it is possible that galaxies with median nebular contributions lower than 8% are impacted'), further indicating that the threshold is a data-driven observation rather than a forced identity. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central threshold relies on the FADO nebular model as reference, on adopted significance criteria, and on calibrated tracer relations. The many fitted slopes and intercepts are not the central claim, but they are used to convert the EW threshold into X_neb and to provide tracers for high-redshift use. The high-redshift conclusion depends on the external Faisst et al. (2016) EW evolution, assumed independent of stellar mass.

free parameters (11)
  • log X_neb vs log EW(Hα) slope = 0.98 ± 0.05
    Fitted to 500 SDSS galaxies from FADO outputs (Eq. 1); used to convert the EW threshold into the X_neb threshold.
  • log X_neb vs log EW(Hα) intercept = -1.77 ± 0.13
    Fitted in Eq. 1.
  • log X_neb vs log EW(Hβ) slope = 1.03 ± 0.03
    Fitted in Eq. 2.
  • log X_neb vs log EW(Hβ) intercept = -1.19 ± 0.05
    Fitted in Eq. 2.
  • log X_neb vs log sSFR slope = 0.50 ± 0.03
    Fitted in Eq. 3.
  • log X_neb vs log sSFR intercept = 4.80 ± 0.24
    Fitted in Eq. 3.
  • Quadratic coefficients for [OIII] relation = 0.08, 0.23, -0.24
    Fitted in Eq. 4.
  • log X_neb vs log EW(HeI5876) slope = 0.96 ± 0.02
    Fitted in Eq. 5.
  • log X_neb vs log EW(HeI5876) intercept = -0.20 ± 0.03
    Fitted in Eq. 5.
  • Significant difference threshold = 0.2 dex
    Adopted from previous FADO/STARLIGHT accuracy tests; defines when FADO and STARLIGHT estimates are considered significantly different.
  • FADO-to-pseudo-continuum EW scaling = 0.1 dex (~25%)
    Adopted from Miranda et al. (2023) to convert FADO EW measurements to the pseudo-continuum definition used in much of the literature.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BPT diagram classification correctly identifies star-forming galaxies whose ionizing radiation is not dominated by AGN.
    Sample selection in Section 2 relies on BPT classification to exclude AGN and ensure that the measured nebular emission is powered by star formation.
  • domain assumption FADO's photoionisation prescription (Krueger et al. 1995; two-photon, free-free, free-bound) accurately models the nebular continuum.
    Section 3 describes FADO's nebular computation; X_neb and the full-consistency vs pure-stellar comparison assume this model is reliable.
  • ad hoc to paper The 0.2 dex typical accuracy of FADO and STARLIGHT is a valid threshold for significant difference in derived galaxy properties.
    Section 5 states that differences larger than 0.2 dex are considered significant, based on prior code accuracy tests.
  • domain assumption The Faisst et al. (2016) empirical EW(Hα) redshift evolution, with slopes 1.8 for z<2 and 1.3 for 2≤z<6, applies to galaxies across stellar mass and can be normalized with local FADO/Cardoso data.
    Section 6.2 and Figure 12 use this relation to infer that galaxies with M*=10^7-10^11 M_sun cross the threshold at z~2-6.
  • ad hoc to paper The median nebular contribution X_neb over the 3000-9000 Å window is a representative measure of the nebular impact on spectral fits.
    Section 4 defines X_neb as the median of the nebular/total continuum ratio over 3000-9000 Å; the choice of window and median is not derived from an external principle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Importance of modelling the nebular continuum in galaxy spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEX2PCI2

@misc{pith2026241212060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Importance of modelling the nebular continuum in galaxy spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEX2PCI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12060}
}
abstract

The neglect of modelling both stellar and nebular emission significantly affects the derived physical properties of galaxies, particularly those with high star formation rates. While this issue has been studied, it has not been established a clear threshold for a significant impact on the estimated physical properties of galaxies due to accounting for both stellar and nebular emission. We analyse galaxies from SDSS-DR7 across a wide range of star-forming activity levels, comparing the results obtained from two spectral fitting tools: FADO (which considers both stellar and nebular continuum) and STARLIGHT (only considers the stellar continuum). A strong linear correlation is found between the rest-frame H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ equivalent widths (EWs) and the optical nebular contribution, identifying these as reliable tracers. The results show that when the nebular contribution exceeds 8% (corresponding to EW(H$\alpha$)$\simeq$500 \r{A} and EW(H$\beta$)$\simeq$110 \r{A}), there is a significant impact on the estimation of galaxy properties, namely stellar mass, age and metallicity. Our results highlight the importance of taking into account both the stellar and nebular continuum when analysing the optical spectra of star-forming galaxies. In particular, this is a fundamental aspect for galaxies with a rest-frame EW(H$\alpha$)$\gtrsim$500 \r{A} (or the scaled value of 375 \r{A} for pseudo-continuum measures). At low redshifts, this mostly impacts extreme emission line galaxies, while at higher redshifts it becomes a dominant aspect given the higher star-forming activity in the younger Universe. In light of current JWST observations and future instruments designed for high-redshift observations, such as MOONS, this reveals as a critical issue to take into consideration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Characterisation of the samples considered in this work. Left panel: EW(Hα) distribution for the selected SF galaxies, in blue, and for the final sample, in orange. Right panel: Redshift distribution of the final sample. no need to follow the distribution of the selected SF galaxies. In fact, if we had followed the overall distribution, we would have a final sample with a significant discrepancy between the num￾ber … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model fitted by FADO to a galaxy in our sample with Xneb=10%. Upper Panel: Observed spectrum (black line) and total, stellar and neb￾ular continuum fitted by FADO (blue, green and red lines, respectively). The shaded regions represent the uncertainty in the estimated models. Bottom Panel: Ratio between the nebular and total continuum fitted by FADO as a function of wavelength. The definition of median nebular contri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the estimated median nebular contribution (blue) and at 3600 Å and 8300 Å (orange and green, respectively) for the galaxies in our sample. among the most commonly used in the literature, are more ad￾equate, and to quantify this relation. This will enable the possi￾bility of having an estimate of the optical nebular contribution simply by using a tracer. We considered nebular contribution tracers rela… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relation between Xneb and the different tracers considered in this work: EW of Hα (upper left), EW of Hβ (upper middle), sSFR (upper right), sum of the flux of the most prominent emission lines (lower left) and SFR (lower right). In the upper left of each panel, we pre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relation between Xneb and EW of [OIII]λ5007 (left panel) and HeIλ5876 (right panel) in log-log scale. The red line is the derived best fit to the data and the resulting equation is presented in the legend. The median error of the data is presented in the bottom right c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relation between Xneb and currently available stellar mass (up￾per left), light-weighted stellar age (upper right), light-weighted stellar metallicity (bottom left) and gaseous metallicity (bottom right). In the upper right of each panel, we present the Pearson correla…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the logarithmic difference between the currently available stellar mass (upper panel) and total ever formed stellar mass (bottom panel) estimated by FADO (FD) and STARLIGHT (ST), for four EW(Hα) bins: EW(Hα)<100 Å (blue), 100≤EW(Hα)<500 Å (or￾ange), 500…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Logarithm of the median differences between FADO (FD) and STARLIGHT (ST) estimates of the stellar mass (diamonds), age (squares) and metallicity (triangles) for the previously considered EW(Hα) bins. Points in each bin slightly shifted for clearer view. 6.1. The impor…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Logarithm of the median differences between FADO in full￾consistency mode (FDFC) and in pure-stellar mode (FDPS ) estimates of the stellar mass (diamonds), age (squares) and metallicity (triangles) for the previously considered EW(Hα) bins. Points in each bin slightly…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the rest-frame EW(Hα) with redshift for different stellar mass intervals. We considered the EW(Hα) redshift evolution from Faisst et al. (2016). We also present, on the right-side axis, the median optical nebular contribution corresponding to the EW(Hα), …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag \"u eros, M. A., et al.\ 2009, , 182, 543

    2009

  2. [2]

    Alongi, M., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., et al.\ 1993, , 97, 851

    1993

  3. [3]

    O., P \'e rez-Montero, E., & V \' lchez, J

    Amor \' n, R. O., P \'e rez-Montero, E., & V \' lchez, J. M.\ 2010, , 715, L128

    2010

  4. [4]

    Amor \' n, R., P \'e rez-Montero, E., Contini, T., et al.\ 2015, , 578, A105

    2015

  5. [5]

    & Fritze-v

    Anders, P. & Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U.\ 2003, , 401, 1063

    2003

  6. [6]

    Atek, H., Siana, B., Scarlata, C., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 121

    2011

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    1981

  8. [8]

    M., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A29

    Breda, I., Vilchez, J. M., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A29

    2022

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Bressan, A., Fagotto, F., Bertelli, G., et al.\ 1993, , 100, 647

    1993

  2. [10]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al.\ 2004, , 351, 1151

    2004

  3. [11]

    W., Salzer, J

    Brunker, S. W., Salzer, J. J., Janowiecki, S., et al.\ 2020, , 898, 68

    2020

  4. [12]

    & Charlot, S.\ 2003, , 344, 1000

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S.\ 2003, , 344, 1000

    2003

  5. [13]

    Boyett, K. N. K., Stark, D. P., Bunker, A. J., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 4451

    2022

  6. [14]

    J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al.\ 2024, , 535, 1796

    Boyett, K., Bunker, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al.\ 2024, , 535, 1796

    2024

  7. [15]

    J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JADESs Collaboration\ 2020, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, IAU Proc., 352, 342

    Bunker, A. J., NIRSPEC Instrument Science Team, & JADESs Collaboration\ 2020, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, IAU Proc., 352, 342

    2020

  8. [16]

    C., et al.\ 2000, , 533, 682

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al.\ 2000, , 533, 682

    2000

  9. [17]

    J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al.\ 2024, , 534, 523

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al.\ 2024, , 534, 523

    2024

  10. [18]

    I., Rinaldi, P., Iani, E., et al.\ 2024, , 969, 159

    Caputi, K. I., Rinaldi, P., Iani, E., et al.\ 2024, , 969, 159

    2024

  11. [19]

    Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al.\ 2009, , 399, 1191

    2009

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  13. [21]

    Cardoso, L. S. M., Gomes, J.-M., & Papaderos, P.\ 2016, , 594, L2

    2016

  14. [22]

    Cardoso, L. S. M., Gomes, J. M., & Papaderos, P.\ 2019, , 622, A56

    2019

  15. [23]

    Cardoso, L. S. M., Gomes, J. M., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2022, , 667, A11

    2022

  16. [24]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al.\ 2018, , 480, 4379

    2018

  17. [25]

    Chabrier, G.\ 2003, Apj, 586, L133

    2003

  18. [26]

    Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodr \'e , L., et al.\ 2005, , 358, 363

    2005

  19. [27]

    Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi \'n ska, G., Mateus, A., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 1687

    2011

  20. [28]

    M., Garc \' a Benito, R., et al.\ 2014, , 561, A130

    Cid Fernandes, R., Gonz \'a lez Delgado, R. M., Garc \' a Benito, R., et al.\ 2014, , 561, A130

    2014

  21. [29]

    & MOONS Consortium\ 2016, Multi-Object Spectroscopy in the Next Decade: Big Questions, Large Surveys, and Wide Fields, 507, 109

    Cirasuolo, M. & MOONS Consortium\ 2016, Multi-Object Spectroscopy in the Next Decade: Big Questions, Large Surveys, and Wide Fields, 507, 109

    2016

  22. [30]

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al.\ 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    2020

  23. [31]

    Conroy, C.\ 2013, , 51, 393

    2013

  24. [32]

    R., Vacca, W

    Corbin, M. R., Vacca, W. D., Cid Fernandes, R., et al.\ 2006, , 651, 861

    2006

  25. [33]

    R., Simons, R

    Davis, K., Trump, J. R., Simons, R. C., et al.\ 2024, , 974, 42

    2024

  26. [34]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al.\ 2023, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 2306.02465 ]

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al.\ 2023, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 2306.02465 ]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P., Chevallard, J., et al.\ 2021, , 500, 5229

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., et al.\ 2021, , 500, 5229

    2021

  28. [36]

    P., Whitler, L., et al.\ 2023, , 524, 2312

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al.\ 2023, , 524, 2312

    2023

  29. [37]

    Fagotto, F., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., et al.\ 1994a, , 104, 365

  30. [38]

    Fagotto, F., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., et al.\ 1994b, , 105, 29

  31. [39]

    L., Capak, P., Hsieh, B

    Faisst, A. L., Capak, P., Hsieh, B. C., et al.\ 2016, , 821, 122

    2016

  32. [40]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al.\ 2023, , 946, L13

    2023

  33. [41]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al.\ 2024, , 969, L2

    2024

  34. [42]

    G., Franx, M., et al.\ 2012, , 757, L22

    Fumagalli, M., Patel, S. G., Franx, M., et al.\ 2012, , 757, L22

    2012

  35. [43]

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., et al.\ 1996, , 117, 113

    1996

  36. [44]

    Gomes, J. M. & Papaderos, P.\ 2017, , 603, A63

    2017

  37. [45]

    Gunawardhana, M. L. P., Brinchmann, J., Weilbacher, P. M., et al.\ 2020, , 497, 3860

    2020

  38. [46]

    C., et al.\ 2024, , 528, 6593

    Guo, Y., Sengupta, C., Scott, T. C., et al.\ 2024, , 528, 6593

    2024

  39. [47]

    G., Izotov, Y

    Guseva, N. G., Izotov, Y. I., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2001, , 378, 756

    2001

  40. [48]

    G., Izotov, Y

    Guseva, N. G., Izotov, Y. I., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2007, , 464, 885

    2007

  41. [49]

    I., et al.\ 2024, , submitted, [ [arXiv] 2406.18207 ]

    Iani, E., Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., et al.\ 2024, , submitted, [ [arXiv] 2406.18207 ]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    I., Lipovetsky, V

    Izotov, Y. I., Lipovetsky, V. A., Chaffee, F. H., et al.\ 1997, , 476, 698

    1997

  43. [51]

    I., Guseva, N

    Izotov, Y. I., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X.\ 2011, , 728, 161

    2011

  44. [52]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2021, , 254, 22

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2021, , 254, 22

    2021

  45. [53]

    C.\ 1998, , 36, 189

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

    1998

  46. [54]

    Alvensleben, U., & Loose, H.-H.\ 1995, , 303, 41

    Krueger, H., Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U., & Loose, H.-H.\ 1995, , 303, 41

    1995

  47. [55]

    Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al.\ 2023, , 616, 266

    2023

  48. [56]

    Lagos, P., Telles, E., Nigoche-Netro, A., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 162

    2011

  49. [57]

    I., Scott, T

    Lagos, P., Loubser, S. I., Scott, T. C., et al.\ 2022, , 516, 5487

    2022

  50. [58]

    L., Hutchison, T

    Larson, R. L., Hutchison, T. A., Bagley, M., et al.\ 2023, , 958, 141

    2023

  51. [59]

    D., et al.\ 1999, , 123, 3

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al.\ 1999, , 123, 3

    1999

  52. [60]

    D., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2017, , 837, 170

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2017, , 837, 170

    2017

  53. [61]

    D., et al.\ 2024, , 969, L5

    Li, Y., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al.\ 2024, , 969, L5

    2024

  54. [62]

    Llerena, M., Amor \' n, R., Pentericci, L., et al.\ 2024, , 691, A59

    2024

  55. [63]

    & Dickinson, M.\ 2014, , 52, 415

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M.\ 2014, , 52, 415

    2014

  56. [64]

    Maiolino, R., Cirasuolo, M., Afonso, J., et al.\ 2020, The Messenger, 180, 24

    2020

  57. [65]

    Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., et al.\ 2010, , 408, 2115

    2010

  58. [66]

    J., Cullen, F., et al.\ 2016, , 460, 3587

    M \'a rmol-Queralt \'o , E., McLure, R. J., Cullen, F., et al.\ 2016, , 460, 3587

    2016

  59. [67]

    P., Brammer, G., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 129

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 129

    2024

  60. [68]

    M., et al.\ 2023, , 946, L39

    McKinney, J., Finnerty, L., Casey, C. M., et al.\ 2023, , 946, L39

    2023

  61. [69]

    Miranda, H., Pappalardo, C., Papaderos, P., et al.\ 2023, , 669, A16

    2023

  62. [70]

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al.\ 2022, , 262, 3

    2022

  63. [71]

    I., Fricke, K

    Papaderos, P., Izotov, Y. I., Fricke, K. J., et al.\ 1998, , 338, 43

    1998

  64. [72]

    I., Thuan, T

    Papaderos, P., Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., et al.\ 2002, , 393, 461

    2002

  65. [73]

    & \"O stlin, G.\ 2012, , 537, A126

    Papaderos, P. & \"O stlin, G.\ 2012, , 537, A126

    2012

  66. [74]

    Papaderos, P., Breda, I., Humphrey, A., et al.\ 2022, , 658, A74

    2022

  67. [75]

    Papaderos, P., \"O stlin, G., & Breda, I.\ 2023, , 673, A30

    2023

  68. [76]

    Pappalardo, C., Cardoso, L. S. M., Michel Gomes, J., et al.\ 2021, , 651, A99

    2021

  69. [77]

    G., Barro, G., Rieke, G

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al.\ 2024, , 968, 4

    2024

  70. [78]

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al.\ 2023, , 519, 1526

    2023

  71. [79]

    A., Shapley, A

    Reddy, N. A., Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., et al.\ 2018, , 869, 92

    2018

  72. [80]

    E., Nidever, D

    Reines, A. E., Nidever, D. L., Whelan, D. G., et al.\ 2010, , 708, 26

    2010

  73. [81]

    Rieke, M.\ 2020, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, 352, 337

    2020

  74. [82]

    G., Riffel, R

    Riffel, R., Dahmer-Hahn, L. G., Riffel, R. A., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 3906

    2022

  75. [83]

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al.\ 2024, , 976, 193

    2024

  76. [84]

    J., MacAlpine, G

    Salzer, J. J., MacAlpine, G. M., & Boroson, T. A.\ 1989, , 70, 479

    1989

  77. [85]

    J., Jones, G

    Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., Jones, G. C., et al.\ 2024, , 684, A84

    2024

  78. [86]

    & de Barros, S.\ 2009, , 502, 423

    Schaerer, D. & de Barros, S.\ 2009, , 502, 423

    2009

  79. [87]

    & de Barros, S.\ 2010, , 515, A73

    Schaerer, D. & de Barros, S.\ 2010, , 515, A73

    2010

  80. [88]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P.\ 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  81. [89]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M.\ 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  82. [90]

    Alvensleben, U., M \"o ller, C

    Schulz, J., Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U., M \"o ller, C. S., et al.\ 2002, , 392, 1

    2002

  83. [91]

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M., et al.\ 2023, , 523, 5468

    2023

  84. [92]

    J., Franx, M., et al.\ 2015, , 801, 122

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al.\ 2015, , 801, 122

    2015

  85. [93]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., et al.\ 2014, , 214, 15

    2014

  86. [94]

    on Evolutionary Computation,842, 844

    Storn, R., & Price, K.V., 1996, Minimizing the real function of the ICEC’96contest by differential evolution, IEEE conf. on Evolutionary Computation,842, 844

    1996

  87. [95]

    Sun, F., Egami, E., Pirzkal, N., et al.\ 2023, , 953, 53

    2023

  88. [96]

    Terlevich, R., Melnick, J., Masegosa, J., et al.\ 1991, , 91, 285

    1991

  89. [97]

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Atek, H., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 74

    2024

  90. [98]

    Weilbacher, P. M. & Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U.\ 2001, , 373, L9

    2001

  91. [99]

    M., Lovell, C

    Wilkins, S. M., Lovell, C. C., & Stanway, E. R.\ 2019, , 490, 5359

    2019

  92. [100]

    N., Rix, H.-W., et al.\ 2011, , 742, 111

    van der Wel, A., Straughn, A. N., Rix, H.-W., et al.\ 2011, , 742, 111

    2011

  93. [101]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., et al.\ 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  94. [102]

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

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

  95. [103]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.