Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Delayed Feedback in High-$z$ Starbursts Revealed by Lyman-$\alpha$ Profiles and Metal Line Diagnostics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles are the signature of starbursts younger than about 4 million years, before core-collapse supernovae have turned on, and that feedback, outflow speed, and outflow mass strengthen…

desk verdict Solid empirical core, plausible but model-dependent age interpretation; worth refereeing with a request for a broader BEAGLE grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20422 v2 pith:ZL426YA4 submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.GA

James Nianias , Jeremy Lim , Yik Lok Wong , Gordon Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemittershigh-redshiftgalaxiesstellarfeedbackgalacticoutflowscore-collapsesupernovaegravitationallensingmetalabsorptionlinesspectralfitting
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 analyzes 338 gravitationally lensed Lyman-$\alpha$-emitting galaxies at redshifts 2.9 to 6.6, combining the Lyman-$\alpha$ profile with metal emission and absorption lines. It tries to establish that the shape of the Lyman-$\alpha$ line encodes the age of the starburst and the strength of its stellar feedback: double-peaked profiles come from extremely young systems ($\lesssim 4$ Myr) with weak, slow outflows, while single-peaked profiles come from older systems ($\gtrsim 10$ Myr) with stronger, faster outflows. The proposed mechanism is delayed feedback, because core-collapse supernovae can only begin after the most massive stars evolve for a few million years. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, Lyman-$\alpha$ morphology becomes a direct probe of feedback timing in the early universe, and simple expanding-shell fits to Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles would be shown to give misleading outflow parameters.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-sided comparison of single- versus double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles. On the outflow side, stacked spectra of low-ionization (Si II, C II) and high-ionization (Si IV) absorption lines measure the column density, covering fraction, and velocity width of gas along the line of sight, providing a direct, model-independent readout of outflow strength. On the source side, stacked UV emission line equivalent widths (C III], C IV, He II, O III], Si III]) and the N V $\lambda\lambda 1238,1243$ P-Cygni profile, a stellar-wind feature that decays within a few million years, are interpreted through a Bayesian spectral-fitting code built on stellar-population and photoionization models; the P-Cygni feature is the key age indicator because it fades on exactly the timescale of interest. The homogeneous thin-shell (HTS) expanding-shell radiative transfer model, fitted by Markov-chain Monte Carlo, is the object whose failure is diagnosed: it fits profiles well but cannot recover the outflow parameters seen in absorption.

What would settle it

Measure the stellar age of individual double-peaked Lyman-alpha galaxies from Balmer-line or continuum-break fitting, while simultaneously measuring the width and centroid of their Si II absorption. If a galaxy with an independently measured age below roughly 4 Myr shows broad (more than about 200 km/s) strongly blueshifted absorption, the claim that feedback remains weak before core-collapse supernovae would fail; if no such young strong-outflow galaxy exists, the delayed-feedback picture is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a systematic, empirically grounded link between Lyman-$\alpha$ line morphology and the evolutionary state of stellar feedback in high-redshift starbursts. Using systemic redshifts from optically thin metal emission lines, the authors confirm that single Lyman-$\alpha$ peaks are redshifted relative to the systemic velocity while double peaks straddle it. In stacked down-the-barrel (line-of-sight) absorption spectra, single-peaked sources show roughly three times stronger and wider low-ionization absorption than double-peaked sources, indicating higher neutral column, larger covering fraction, and faster or more turbulent outflowing gas; double-peaked sources also lack significant high-ionization absorption. Conversely, double-peaked sources show much stronger UV metal emission lines and a deeper N V P-Cygni wind feature, which, when fitted with stellar population and photoionization models, imply ages of $\lesssim 4$ Myr versus $\gtrsim 10$ Myr for single-peaked sources. The paper reads this as feedback being weak in the first few million years and strengthening dramatically at the onset of core-collapse supernovae. It also finds that homogeneous thin-shell radiative transfer models reproduce the observed Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles while returning unphysical parameters and systematically overestimating systemic redshifts, so those models should not be trusted for outflow inference.

Load-bearing premise

The age split that carries the argument is inferred by fitting stacked spectra with a model that assumes steady star formation, a Chabrier initial mass function extending to 300 solar masses, no significant binary evolution, and a gas density of $10^{3}$ $cm^{-3}$; if real starbursts are bursty, binary-rich, or have a lighter IMF, the roughly 4-versus-10 Myr ages and the supernova-timing interpretation could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lyman-$\alpha$ profile shape becomes an empirical age indicator for high-redshift starbursts: double-peaked means $\lesssim 4$ Myr, single-peaked means $\gtrsim 10$ Myr.
  • Outflow properties change by roughly a factor of three in strength and width within the first 10 million years of a starburst, so simulations should not treat feedback as constant during this window.
  • Expanding-shell fits that look excellent can still return unphysical neutral columns, dust optical depths, and intrinsic line widths, and they systematically overestimate systemic redshifts; outflow velocities and Lyman-continuum-leakage estimates derived from them should be re-examined.
  • Metal emission line ratios secure the sources as H II regions rather than AGN, so the age-feedback sequence applies to normal star-forming galaxies, not a hidden active-galaxy subpopulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the delayed-feedback reading is right, the same double-to-single transition should be observable across the lifetime of a single long-lived starburst: a galaxy observed first at $\sim 3$ Myr and later at $\sim 15$ Myr should shift from double- to single-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ while its metal absorption broadens and strengthens.
  • A testable extension would compare outflow momentum flux per unit star-formation rate against stellar age; the paper's picture predicts a sharp jump near 4 Myr rather than a smooth rise.
  • The documented overestimate of systemic redshift in shell models implies that published outflow velocities from Lyman-$\alpha$ alone may be systematically low, and estimates of Lyman-continuum escape based on systemic Lyman-$\alpha$ flux may be biased high.
  • The clumpy, multiphase absorption geometry seen here suggests that next-generation Lyman-$\alpha$ radiative transfer should move from homogeneous shells to porosity or multi-component velocity fields; the paper's toy models are a first step in that direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 338 gravitationally lensed Lyman-alpha emitters at z ~ 2.9-6.6 from the MUSE cluster fields of Richard et al. (2021). The authors fit Lyman-alpha profiles, measure systemic redshifts with optically thin metal emission lines, and stack metal absorption and emission lines for sources with single-peaked (SP) and double-peaked (DP) Lyman-alpha profiles. They report that SP sources show stronger, broader, more blueshifted low-ionization absorption than DP sources, while DP sources show higher emission-line equivalent widths and younger BEAGLE stellar ages (about 4 Myr versus about 10 Myr or more). They interpret this as delayed feedback: DP sources are extremely young starbursts in which core-collapse supernovae have not yet begun, whereas SP sources are older and host SNe-driven outflows. They also fit expanding-shell radiative transfer models with zELDA and find that, despite good chi-square values, the models yield unphysical parameters and systematically overestimate systemic redshifts, cautioning against the use of such models for outflow inference.

Significance. If the age-feedback interpretation holds, the paper provides a rare empirical constraint on the onset of supernova feedback in high-redshift starbursts, linking Lyman-alpha profile morphology to stellar population age. The empirical correlations themselves--stronger and wider low-ionization absorption in SP than DP stacks, and higher metal emission EWs in DP sources--are supported by careful stacking, bootstrap uncertainties, and several robustness tests. The paper also makes a valuable methodological point by showing that homogeneous expanding-shell models can fit Lyman-alpha profiles while returning unphysical parameters. These strengths make the central idea appealing and worth publishing if the model-dependent age inference can be hardened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3, Table 2 and Figure 13] The quantitative age separation between DP and SP sources rests entirely on BEAGLE fits that assume a constant star formation history, a Chabrier IMF with a 300 Msun upper mass cutoff, and a gas density of 10^3 cm^-3. The paper tests only 100 versus 300 Msun cutoffs and single-burst versus constant SFH, adopting the 300 Msun cutoff because the DP He II 1640 EW requires it. Since the He II EW, C IV emission, and N V P-Cygni profile are the features most sensitive to the massive-star IMF and SFH, the inferred ages of about 4 Myr and about 10 Myr are conditional on these choices. I request a broader model grid--varying the IMF slope and upper cutoff, using declining or two-burst SFHs, and ideally including binary-rich stellar population models--to demonstrate that the age separation and its alignment with the onset of core-collapse supernovae persist.
  2. [Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3, Figures 9 and 12] The DP/SP classification is acknowledged to be sensitive to SNR and IGM attenuation, yet the individual-source EW comparison in Figure 9 does not apply the redshift cut used in the stacked analysis (SP at z > 4 excluded). This creates a possible selection bias: intrinsically DP sources at high redshift whose blue peaks are attenuated by the IGM would be classified as SP, and the KS test p-value of 0.0025 could then reflect IGM/SNR selection rather than an intrinsic age difference. Please apply the same redshift and SNR cuts to the individual-EW comparison, or otherwise show that the emission-line EW difference is not driven by these selection effects.
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Figure 10 and Abstract] The claim that SP outflows are 'slower' or 'less turbulent' than DP outflows is weaker than the abstract suggests. The stacked absorption centroid offset is -60 km/s with a 95% confidence interval of [-105, +6] km/s, which includes zero, and the width difference loses formal significance when the three strongest SP absorbers are excluded (as the paper itself notes). The absorption strength difference is robust, but the 'narrower' and especially 'slower' language should be softened or supported by additional analysis, because it is part of the central feedback-timescale interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.3] The sentence 'we excluded any SP sources with z < 4, which may be intrinsically DP sources affected by IGM attenuation' appears to be a typo: the comparison with Section 3.2.2 indicates that the intended cut is z > 4.
  2. [Section 3.2.1, Figure 9] The joint KS test is reported with p = 0.0025, but the text does not specify whether the test treats each line detection as an independent entry or combines lines per source; this should be clarified because multiple lines from the same source are not independent.
  3. [Section 3.1.3] The line is referred to as Si II 1527, whereas the standard air wavelength is 1526.72 Å; please use the conventional notation.
  4. [Section 3.3] The toy models in Table 4 and Figure 17 are useful illustrations, but the text should more explicitly state that the two-component mixtures neglect radiative transfer between components and therefore provide only a qualitative demonstration, not a quantitative calibration, of the HTS model biases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the stellar ages, outflow parameters, and systemic redshifts are explicitly fitted to the data and then compared with independent metal-line diagnostics, so no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a fit, not a prediction hiding inside its inputs. In Section 3.2.3 the stellar ages are obtained by running BEAGLE with the stacked SP/DP emission-line EWs and the 1220-1260 Angstrom P-Cygni window as constraints (Table 2, Figure 13); the posterior ages are then compared in Section 3.2.2 with independently measured stacked low- and high-ionization metal absorption profiles. The age difference and the absorption difference are therefore two empirical measurements placed side by side, and the 'delayed onset of core-collapse SNe' interpretation is imported from external stellar-evolution timescales (Woosley et al. 2002; Leitherer et al. 2014), not from the fitted parameters themselves. The choice of a constant SFH and a 300 solar-mass Chabrier IMF upper cutoff is a model assumption whose sensitivity is partially explored (single-burst versus constant SFH; 100 versus 300 solar-mass cutoffs; gas densities from 10^2 to 10^4 cm^-3). Model dependence is not circularity: the paper does not claim to predict the EWs it fits, and it explicitly reports the fitted quantities as fits. The zELDA expanding-shell analysis is likewise a test, not a circular validation: it fits Ly-alpha profiles, then shows that the fitted systemic redshift overestimates the systemic redshifts measured from optically-thin metal lines and returns unphysical parameters. The only heavily used external catalog, R21, is by different authors (Richard et al. 2021), so no load-bearing self-citation is present. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input. Hence a score of 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim depends on a chain of fitted parameters (BEAGLE age, zELDA outflow parameters) and on modeling choices (IMF cutoff, SFH, density, HTS geometry) that are not independently verified.

free parameters (8)
  • BEAGLE stellar age (log yr) = DP ~ 10^6.6 yr, SP ~ 10^7.2-7.8 yr
    Fitted to stacked C III], C IV, He II, O III] EWs and N V P-Cygni profile; drives the central age interpretation.
  • BEAGLE ionization parameter log U = higher in DP sources (roughly -2.0 to -2.4)
    Fitted to stacked emission line ratios; used to interpret ISM geometry.
  • BEAGLE dust depletion factor xi_d = larger in DP sources (~0.3-0.45)
    Fitted to stacked emission line ratios; used to interpret dust content.
  • zELDA systemic redshift zsys = variable, overestimated relative to optically-thin line redshifts
    Fitted parameter in HTS model; overestimation is a key finding.
  • zELDA expansion velocity Vexp = 0-400 km/s, SP typically ~40 km/s higher than DP
    Fitted to Lyalpha profiles; compared with absorption centroid offsets.
  • zELDA H I column density NH = log NH 17 to 21.5 cm^-2
    Fitted to Lyalpha profiles; often unphysical for DP sources.
  • zELDA dust optical depth tau_a = 0 to 1, often near 1 for DP sources
    Fitted to Lyalpha profiles; suspected artifact of clumpy outflows.
  • zELDA intrinsic Lyalpha width Win = 0.01 to 6 A, larger in DP sources
    Fitted to Lyalpha profiles; likely unphysical compensation for high NH and tau_a.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Optically thin UV emission lines (C III], He II, O III]) trace the systemic redshift
    Invoked in Section 3.1.1 to define systemic velocity; if these lines are partially resonant or affected by outflows, velocity offsets and absorption kinematics change.
  • domain assumption MUSE spectral resolution is ~2.40 A and unresolved narrow lines are treated as possible sky residuals
    Section 2.7; affects line detection and SP/DP classification.
  • domain assumption Lensing models and magnifications from R21 are accurate
    Used for sample selection and luminosity/magnification comparisons; errors affect representativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper BEAGLE with constant SFH, Chabrier IMF (upper cutoff 300 Msun), and n=10^3 cm^-3 reproduces the stacked spectra
    Section 3.2.3; the central age inference depends on these choices. The paper says single-burst models failed to reproduce both EWs and P-Cygni simultaneously.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous thin shell (HTS) geometry in zELDA is a meaningful baseline for Lyalpha fitting
    Section 3.3; the paper tests this assumption and finds it produces unphysical parameters, which is a finding, but the comparison of SP/DP parameters assumes the model is informative at least qualitatively.
  • standard math Adopted flat LCDM cosmology does not affect relative velocity comparisons
    Section 1; only affects distances and luminosities, not velocity offsets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delayed Feedback in High-$z$ Starbursts Revealed by Lyman-$\alpha$ Profiles and Metal Line Diagnostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZL426YA4

@misc{pith2026250620422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delayed Feedback in High-$z$ Starbursts Revealed by Lyman-$\alpha$ Profiles and Metal Line Diagnostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZL426YA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20422}
}
abstract

Lyman-$\alpha$ emission, which owing to its resonant nature strongly couples the emergent line profile to gas kinematics, is a key observable for probing outflows from star-forming galaxies in the early universe. Inferences of outflow properties from Lyman-$\alpha$, however, often lack contextual comparisons with more direct outflow diagnostics from down-the-barrel metal absorption lines and driving-source properties from metal emission lines. Here, we make such checks by taking advantage of the lensing magnification provided by galaxy clusters for 338 Lyman-$\alpha$ sources observed with the Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE). Using metal emission lines to measure systemic redshifts, we confirm that the Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles are consistent with outflowing gas: single peaks redshifted relative to, or double peaks straddling, the systemic redshift. In cases where metal absorption lines are detected, blueshifted velocities indicate outflows, while line ratios point to absorption by a clumpy medium. We find systematic differences in both metal absorption and emission lines associated with single- versus double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles, such that the latter are preferentially associated with weaker and narrower metal absorption profiles, but stronger emission lines indicating younger stellar ages ($\lesssim4\,$Myr for double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ vs $\gtrsim10\,$Myr for single-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$). Double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles may therefore reflect weaker feedback in extremely young starbursts due to the delayed onset of core-collapse supernovae. Fitting model Lyman-$\alpha$ profiles based on simple expanding shell geometry to those observed, we find that such models successfully reproduce the data, yet systematically overestimate systemic redshifts and yield unphysical parameters -- calling for caution when inferring outflow properties from such models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lyα profiles demonstrating the criterion by which we consider the red and blue peaks to be resolved (left) or unresolved (right). In both cases, the lines have been fitted with two asymmetric gaussians. The peak wavelengths are shown with dashed lines, while the dark shaded bands indicate the distance between the respective peaks and the points at which the profiles obtain half of their maximum values (the light sha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: redshifts of the peaks of the fitted Lyα profiles (in cases where the Lyα is double-peaked, we use the peak wavelength of the redshifted peak). Middle: Lyα luminosities (summing both peaks in double-peaked cases) adjusted for lensing magnification based on the lens models of R21. Right: Magnifications from the R21 lens models. any lines in which the SNR of the line peak was greater than the SNR of the total in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity offsets of emission and absorption lines relative to the blue Lyα peak, where present, (left) and red Lyα peak (right). In spectra where multiple emission or ab￾sorption lines are detected, the velocity offsets are calculated as the SNR-weighted average of all…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison in velocity space of Lyα profiles, stacked optically-thin emission lines, stacked low-ionization absorption, and stacked high-ionization absorption profiles. The zero point of the velocity axis is centered on the systemic velocity, and the central velocities…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EW ratios for the low-ionization Si II absorption doublet (left) and high-ionization Si IV absorption doublet (right). Distributions are generated by Monte Carlo boot￾strapping of the spectral uncertainties when fitting the ab￾sorption profiles. Absorption in optically…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured emission line ratios for spectra with verified, highly significant metal emission lines. Circular points indicate detections, while vertical (horizontal) trian￾gular points indicate upper bounds in the ordinate (abscissa). Sources with single-peaked Lyα lines …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Equivalent width of the most commonly found emission lines in single- vs double-peaked Lyα sources, showing a clear preference for higher EWs in double-peaked sources (a joint KS test excluding Lyα yields a p-value of 0.0025). Gutkin et al. (2016) for ionization by you…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stacked absorption lines from low-ionization species (left) and high-ionization species (right) for sources with single-peaked Lyα profiles (red) and double-peaked Lyα profiles (blue). Si IIλ1260 and Si IIλ1527 lines are stacked to￾gether for the low-ionization absorp…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Velocity offsets of the Lyα peaks relative to the systemic velocity as measured by metal emission lines (high￾confidence detections only). The median offsets (shown with dashed vertical lines) are almost identical for single- and double-peaked Lyα profiles. 3.2.3. Lyα…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stacked (a) N Vλλ1238, 1243, (b) C IVλλ1548, 1551, (c) He IIλ1640, (d) O III]λλ1661, 1666, (e) Si III]λλ1883, 1892, and (f) C III]λλ1907, 1909 profiles for single- and double-peaked sources. Fitted gaussian models are indicated with ma￾genta dashed lines. The EW of al…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left corner plot: Posterior distributions for the parameters fitted to the emission line EWs by BEAGLE, showing the results for the single-peaked and double-peaked stacked emission lines in red and blue respectively. In the 2D posteriors, contours are shown at the 68%…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Examples of Lyα profiles with poorly-fitting expanding shell models. (a) a case in which the fit is qualitatively reasonable, but extreme SNR renders even small discrepancies highly statistically significant. (b) a case in which the model is qualitatively incorrect: i…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of fitted expanding shell model parameters for SP vs DP Lyα profiles. an unexpectedly large number of sources with τa ∼ 1, the upper bound of the range covered by the model grid, many of which are DP sources. This is unexpected, as blue peaks are strongly s…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of estimated intrinsic emission line widths for single and double-peaked Lyα spectra, showing no clear difference in the distributions or, if anything, lower widths in double-peaked spectra. and DP sources, which should provide an indication of Lyα intrinsi…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of estimated systemic velocity from expanding shell models with that measured using optically thin emission lines. Uncertainties are shown at the 3σ level. DP and SP sources are shown in blue and red, respectively; as can be seen in the histogram below. The…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Histograms of luminosity in the HST F160W band for SP (red) and DP (blue) sources, based on photom￾etry from R21. No statistically significant difference can be seen as may be expected if SP sources are generally more massive than DP sources. minosity in the HST F160W…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. THOR: a GPU-accelerated and MPI-parallel radiative transfer code

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new GPU-accelerated, MPI-parallel Monte Carlo radiative transfer code (THOR) for resonant emission lines is validated against analytic solutions and benchmarked across idealized and cosmological setups, with measure...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, ApJ, 770, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  2. [2]

    2004, ApJL, 601, L25, doi: 10.1086/381750 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ahn, S.-H. 2004, ApJL, 601, L25, doi: 10.1086/381750 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 202...

    doi:10.1086/381750 2004

  3. [3]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508, doi: 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  4. [4]

    A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b 2021

  5. [5]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/4

    Berry, M., Gawiser, E., Guaita, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/4 2012

  6. [6]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1523

    Blaizot, J., Garel, T., Verhamme, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1523

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1523 2023

  8. [9]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

Show all 56 references
  1. [10]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    Chevallard, J., Charlot, S., Wandelt, B., & Wild, V. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt523

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 63, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06154.x

    Chiappini, C., Romano, D., & Matteucci, F. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 63, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06154.x

    2003

  4. [13]

    R., Bayliss, M., et al

    Chisholm, J., Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3104

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    2022, A&A, 666, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142320

    Claeyssens, A., Richard, J., Blaizot, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142320

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    2014, A&A, 562, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220455

    Duval, F., Schaerer, D., ¨Ostlin, G., & Laursen, P. 2014, A&A, 562, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220455

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    Erb, D. K. 2015, Nature, 523, 169, doi: 10.1038/nature14454

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2794

    Feltre, A., Charlot, S., & Gutkin, J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2794

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    R., Dufour, R

    Garnett, D. R., Dufour, R. J., Peimbert, M., et al. 1995, ApJL, 449, L77, doi: 10.1086/309620

    1995 doi

  10. [19]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., McCourt, M., & Oh, S. P. 2016, ApJL, 833, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L26 Gurung-L´ opez, S., Gronke, M., Saito, S., Bonoli, S., & Orsi, ´A. A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3554 Gurung-L´ opez, S., Orsi,´A. A., & Bonoli, S. 201...

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    Gutkin, J., Charlot, S., & Bruzual, G. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad477

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    I., Rinaldi, P., et al

    Iani, E., Caputi, K. I., Rinaldi, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15f6

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    P., & Ellis, R

    Jones, T., Stark, D. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 751, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/51

    2012 doi

  19. [28]

    C., Somerville, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5 2

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Shapley, A

    Kulas, K. R., Shapley, A. E., Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/33

    2012 doi

  22. [31]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    Leitherer, C., Ekstr¨ om, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1207 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R

    Li, Z., & Gronke, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1207 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20331, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20331 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20331, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20331 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2309

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 Orlitov´ a, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 Orlitov´ a, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732478

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    G., & Baugh, C

    Orsi, A., Lacey, C. G., & Baugh, C. M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 87, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21396.x

    2012

  27. [36]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    B., & Peebles, P

    Partridge, R. B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 868, doi: 10.1086/149079

    1967 doi

  29. [38]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534d

    Pedrini, A., Adamo, A., Calzetti, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534d

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Steidel, C

    Pettini, M., Rix, S. A., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 742, doi: 10.1086/339355

    2002 doi

  31. [40]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Piqueras, L., Conseil, S., Shepherd, M., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 521, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVI, ed. M. Molinaro, K. Shortridge, & F. Pasian, 545 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et...

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., & Shapley, A. E. 2016, ApJ, 828, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/108

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    2021, A&A, 646, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039462

    Richard, J., Claeyssens, A., Lagattuta, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039462

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    E., Hayes, M., ¨Ostlin, G., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Hayes, M., ¨Ostlin, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/14

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65, doi: 10.1086/373922

    2003 doi

  36. [45]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/74

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/74

    2014 doi

  37. [46]

    T., Lilly, S

    Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, ZAP: Zurich Atmosphere Purge, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1602.003

    2016

  38. [47]

    P., Richard, J., Siana, B., et al

    Stark, D. P., Richard, J., Siana, B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1618

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Erb, D

    Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/289

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    K., & Heckman, T

    Strickland, D. K., & Heckman, T. M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2030, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2030

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    G., & Weaver, K

    Hoopes, C. G., & Weaver, K. A. 2004, ApJS, 151, 193, doi: 10.1086/382214

    2004 doi

  42. [51]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  43. [52]

    F., Steidel, C

    Trainor, R. F., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., & Rudie, G. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/89

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx351

    Vanzella, E., Calura, F., Meneghetti, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx351

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423978

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423978

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    2006, A&A, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., & Maselli, A. 2006, A&A, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.