Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Beyond the Brightest: A Deep Learning Approach to Identifying Major and Minor Galaxy Mergers in CANDELS at $z \sim 1$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural network trained on simulated Hubble images can identify faint, minor galaxy mergers at z~1 with about 73% accuracy, a level comparable to networks trained on brighter, lower-redshift samples.

desk verdict Solid mock-image merger classifier with honest failure analysis, but the abstract overclaims real-CANDELS applicability and contradicts the body on the headline accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.12173 v2 pith:PGBQAAOK submitted 2025-10-14 astro-ph.GA

Aimee L. Schechter , Aleksandra Ćiprijanović , Xuejian Shen , Rebecca Nevin , Julia M. Comerford , Aaron Stemo , Laura Blecha , Austin Fraley This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymergersconvolutionalneuralnetworkslow-massgalaxiesminorcosmicnoonCANDELSIllustrisTNGmockobservations
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 argues that a convolutional neural network, trained on realistic mock Hubble/CANDELS images built from a high-resolution cosmological simulation, can identify galaxy mergers at redshift ~1 that are much fainter and at lower mass ratios than previous methods could find. The network achieves about 73% accuracy, purity, and completeness, and recovers early-stage major mergers about 74-80% of the time. This matters because low-mass and minor mergers are common and likely drive much of galaxy growth at cosmic noon, yet they are easily confused with clumpy star-forming galaxies. If the network transfers to real CANDELS data, it would enable statistical studies of these previously overlooked mergers.

What carries the argument

The essential mechanism is the mock-image pipeline: simulated galaxies are post-processed with full dust radiative transfer, filtered into three HST bands, convolved with a simulated point-spread function, and embedded in real CANDELS background cutouts, so each image has a known ground-truth label, realistic noise, and contamination by background objects. This gives the network labeled training data close to actual HST observations, letting it learn morphology-based merger signatures rather than artifacts. The CNN itself is a residual convolutional network initialized with weights from a model trained on millions of citizen-scientist galaxy classifications, then fine-tuned on the mock image

What would settle it

Run the trained network on a sample of real CANDELS galaxies with independent, reliable merger labels (e.g., from spectroscopic close pairs or expert visual inspections in fields not used for background cutouts) and measure whether accuracy, purity, and completeness remain near 73% for low-mass and minor mergers. Another concrete test: apply the network to mock images from a different simulation (e.g., with different subgrid physics) and see if accuracy drops; if it does, the network has learned simulation-specific morphologies rather than universal merger features.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a CNN fed three HST bands with realistic PSF, noise, and background sources classifies mergers and nonmergers among galaxies with stellar masses from 10^8 to 10^12.5 solar masses and mass ratios down to 1:10 with ~73% balanced accuracy. The authors claim this is the first demonstration that a CNN trained on such a diverse mass and mass-ratio range performs comparably to networks trained on more massive or lower-redshift samples, with ~76% accuracy on major mergers and ~68% on minor mergers. They also find that orientation angle is a fundamental limit: 98% of mergers are identified from at least one of six viewpoints, but only 61% from the majority, meaning some

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that mock CANDELS images built from TNG50 with radiative transfer are similar enough to real CANDELS data—in morphology, noise, and normalization—that the CNN's 73% accuracy on mock images will transfer to real galaxies; the paper itself notes there will always be differences between mock images and real data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method can produce a merger catalog from existing CANDELS imaging that extends to stellar masses about 100 times lower than previous CNN-based catalogs at z~1.
  • Such a catalog would let astronomers measure merger rates for minor mergers at cosmic noon and test whether minor mergers drive the growth of low-mass galaxies.
  • The orientation-angle statistics imply that no single-angle image can ever find every merger; catalogs must state incompleteness as a function of viewing angle, and multi-angle or multi-epoch data would be needed to push above the ~90% ceiling.
  • The network's reliance on star formation as a discriminating feature means real-data merger samples will inherit an sSFR-dependent selection function; the authors show that removing color information lowers accuracy by ~10%, so color is a genuine aid, not just a confounder.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply this network (after domain adaptation) to real CANDELS galaxies and compare its predictions with spectroscopic close-pair catalogs; agreement would validate the mock-to-real transfer, while disagreement would localize where the simulation assumptions break.
  • The per-galaxy detectability across six viewpoints could be used as a prior to derive an orientation-unbiased merger rate from single-view observations, a step the paper leaves implicit.
  • The sSFR-sensitivity suggests that a real CANDELS catalog built this way will preferentially include star-forming mergers; matching nonmergers in both mass and SFR would reduce false positives but might also suppress the very merger-induced starbursts of scientific interest.
  • The same pipeline can be re-run with JWST, Rubin, Roman, or Euclid PSFs and filters; the paper's principle that realistic environments matter more than radiative transfer predicts that retraining on appropriate mock backgrounds is the main cost, not redoing the physics.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper trains a ResNet18 CNN, initialized with Zoobot weights, on mock HST/CANDELS three-band images of TNG50 galaxies at 1 ≤ z ≤ 1.5, spanning stellar masses 10^8–10^12.5 M_sun and merger mass ratios μ > 1:10. Merger labels are taken from SubLink merger trees, and mock images are produced with SKIRT radiative transfer, TinyTim PSFs, and real CANDELS background cutouts. The reported test-set performance on a balanced, per-galaxy held-out set is ~73% accuracy, purity, and completeness, with early-stage mergers identified at ~80% and major mergers at ~76%. The paper also analyzes the effect of orientation angle, presents Grad-CAM and UMAP interpretability results, and identifies star formation rate as a confound. The authors conclude that the network is ready to enable merger identification in CANDELS and future surveys.

Significance. If the reported performance transfers to real observations, this would be a valuable extension of CNN-based merger identification to lower stellar masses and higher mass ratios at z ~ 1, a regime that previous work has largely excluded. The experimental design is in several respects careful: all six viewpoints of a galaxy are kept in the same split, results are averaged over three random seeds, and standard metrics plus calibration statistics are reported. The orientation analysis and the explicit sSFR misclassification analysis are honest and informative. However, the central external-validity claim is not yet supported: all evaluation is performed on mock images from the same simulation/pipeline used for training, and the paper's own sSFR analysis indicates a potential confound that may not transfer to real CANDELS data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §5.3] The headline claim that the network 'enables the exploration of ... mergers ... in CANDELS' is supported only by metrics on mock images built from TNG50 with the same SKIRT/CANDELS-background pipeline. The authors concede in §5.3 that 'there will always be differences between mock images and real data' and defer domain adaptation to future work. The 73% accuracy/purity/completeness (Table 1) is therefore a simulation-validated figure, not a demonstrated real-data performance. Please either add a sanity check against existing CANDELS merger catalogs (e.g., visual or non-parametric classifications) or reframe the abstract/conclusion to say the classifier is 'prepared for' rather than 'enables' real-data science.
  2. [§4.3, Figures 10–11; §2.1] The nonmerger sample is mass-matched but not SFR-matched, and the paper's own UMAP and misclassification analysis show that the network's decisions track sSFR: misclassified nonmergers have higher sSFR and misclassified mergers lower sSFR. Because TNG50 mass-matched mergers have higher sSFR on average (Figure 1), some of the reported accuracy may reflect the network using blue/star-forming structure as a proxy for merging rather than a robust morphological merger signature. This is not circular, but it weakens the morphological claim. Please report performance stratified by sSFR (e.g., accuracy on high-sSFR nonmergers versus low-sSFR nonmergers) or evaluate on an SFR-matched test set, and discuss how much separation remains after controlling for sSFR.
  3. [Table 1, §4.1] All headline metrics are quoted at the default decision threshold of 0.5 on a balanced test set. At realistic CANDELS merger fractions, the same per-class error rates (completeness ≈ 0.73, false-positive rate ≈ 0.26 from Figure 4) imply purity of roughly 25–40% (e.g., ≈34% at a 15% merger fraction). The paper does not discuss prior correction, threshold selection, or the resulting purity/completeness at realistic operating points. To support the claimed applicability to CANDELS, please include precision–recall curves or recalibrate the threshold for representative merger fractions and state the expected purity at those operating points.
  4. [Abstract vs. Table 1] The abstract in the arXiv header reports overall accuracy of ~65%, while the abstract in the full text and §4/Table 1 report 73.02 ± 0.41%. This is a direct discrepancy in the central quantitative result. The inconsistency must be reconciled, and if the 65% figure refers to a different configuration it should be clearly explained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The Brier score is defined with o_t as the network's own final class ('cutoff score of 0.5'), not the true binary label. The standard Brier score compares the predicted probability to the true outcome, (p_t − y_t)^2. As written, the reported Brier score is not a proper scoring rule and its value may be misinterpreted.
  2. [§3.1 and Figure 3 caption] The text says the best model is chosen by the epoch with the lowest validation loss, but the Figure 3 caption says 'lowest validation accuracy.' Please make the selection criterion consistent.
  3. [§2.1] The description of 'one mini snapshot on each side of the central full snapshot' within 250 Myr may be asymmetric in time at z = 1.5; a short clarification of the actual snapshot spacing would help reproducibility.
  4. [Abstract and §2.1] The abstract uses q ≥ 1:10 while the text uses μ > 1:10. Please use one notation consistently and define q/μ at first use.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] Typo: 'classifiy' should be 'classify'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: merger labels come from TNG50 SubLink merger trees, the test set is held out, and mock-to-real transfer is an acknowledged extrapolation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: ground-truth merger/nonmerger labels are assigned by SubLink merger-tree definitions in Section 2.1, independently of the CNN; images are produced through SKIRT radiative transfer and real CANDELS backgrounds (Section 2.2); and the reported accuracy/purity/completeness are computed on a held-out test set from which all six viewpoints of a galaxy are excluded during training (Section 2.3, Table 1). No parameter is fitted to the test set and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper's own limitation statements — e.g., 'there will always be differences between mock images and real data' (Section 5.3), and the sSFR confound discussed in Sections 4.3 and 5.2.3 — concern external validity of applying the network to real CANDELS, not circularity of the mock-image evaluation. The self-citations (Schechter et al. 2025 for the nonmerger matching scheme, Shen et al. and Nevin et al. for the radiative-transfer setup) are methodological and not load-bearing proof of the classification result. The central claim of ~73% accuracy on mock CANDELS images is an honest measurement within one simulation pipeline; the extension to real CANDELS is an unvalidated extrapolation, which is a transferability risk, not a circular step.

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

The central claim rests on the realism of TNG50 + SKIRT mock images and on the merger labels from TNG merger trees; these are domain assumptions with no independent validation in this paper. No new physical entities are introduced. Model hyperparameters and sample-selection thresholds are hand-chosen and affect the reported metrics.

free parameters (5)
  • merger mass-ratio threshold μ > 0.1 = 0.1 (1:10)
    Defines which mergers are included; the 1:10 minor-merger claim depends on this cut (Section 2.1).
  • merger snapshot window = ±250 Myr around z=1 and z=1.5
    Assigns 'early' vs 'late' stage labels and controls the stage mix in training (Section 2.1).
  • nonmerger quiescence window = 2 Gyr
    Defines the nonmerger control sample; changes the difficulty of the negative class (Section 2.1).
  • decision threshold = 0.5
    All reported accuracy/purity/completeness use the default softmax threshold; changing it trades purity against completeness (Section 4.1).
  • mass-matching tolerance = e^0.1 with 1.5 expansion factor
    Constructs mass-matched nonmergers; affects the mass distribution of the negative class (Section 2.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG50 physics produces realistic galaxy morphologies and merger properties at z≈1
    The whole training set is TNG50; if simulated galaxies are not morphologically representative of real z≈1 galaxies, the CNN learns the wrong mapping (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption SubLink/Rodriguez-Gomez merger trees correctly identify true mergers and nonmergers
    Labels are derived from these trees; label errors become training and test label noise (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption SKIRT dust radiative transfer with adopted dust-to-metal ratio (0.4 below z=2) and FsPS/Mappings-III SEDs yields realistic CANDELS fluxes
    Mock images are the only bridge to observations; the dust-to-metal ratio and SED libraries are adopted from prior calibrations (Section 2.2.1).
  • domain assumption Real CANDELS cutouts without central sources provide representative backgrounds and noise for mock images
    The paper places simulated galaxies on real CANDELS sky backgrounds, assuming these cutouts are representative of fields where the network will be applied (Section 2.2.3).
  • domain assumption Freezing all but the dense layer of ResNet18 preserves enough information for merger identification
    Only dense-layer weights are updated during training; if the frozen Zoobot feature space is insufficient for low-mass, high-redshift mergers, performance would drop (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Brightest: A Deep Learning Approach to Identifying Major and Minor Galaxy Mergers in CANDELS at $z \sim 1$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGBQAAOK

@misc{pith2026251012173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Brightest: A Deep Learning Approach to Identifying Major and Minor Galaxy Mergers in CANDELS at $z \sim 1$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGBQAAOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.12173}
}
abstract

Galaxy mergers play an important role in galaxy evolution. Therefore, accurate merger identifications are paramount for achieving a complete understanding of how galaxies evolve. As we enter the era of large, deep, high-resolution imaging surveys, we can observe mergers extending to even lower masses and higher redshifts. Despite low-mass galaxies being more common, many previous merger identification methods were calibrated for high-mass galaxies, which are easier to identify. To prepare for upcoming surveys, we train a convolutional neural network (CNN) using mock $\textit{HST}$ CANDELS images at $z\sim1$ created from the IllustrisTNG50 cosmological simulation. We successfully identify galaxy mergers between a wide range of galaxies ($10^8M_\odot < M_\star < 10^{12.5}M_\odot$, and $q\geq1:10$), achieving overall accuracy, purity, and completeness of $\sim65\%$. We show, for the first time, that a CNN trained on this diverse set of galaxies is capable of identifying major mergers, especially at early stages (74% accuracy), similar to that of networks trained at lower redshifts and/or higher masses (with accuracies between $66-80$%). We discuss the inherent limits of galaxy merger identification due to orientation angle, finding 98% of mergers are correctly identified from at least one angle, and 61% from the majority of angles. We additionally explore the confounding variables, such as star formation, to consider when applying to real data.This network enables the exploration of the impact of previously overlooked mergers of high mass ratio and low stellar masses on galaxy evolution in CANDELS, and can be expanded to surveys from $\textit{JWST}$, Rubin, $\textit{Roman}$, and $\textit{Euclid}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.12173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Distributions of merging and nonmerging galaxies’ stellar masses. Center: Stacked histogram of merger mass ratios in the merging sample color coded by merger stage as defined in Section 2.1. Right: Distributions of sSFR for mergers and nonmergers. ing 64 1 nearest stellar particles for all stellar particles within the galaxy. Given the spatial location and the smoothing length values of stellar particles, SKIR… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Main steps to create a mock F814W CANDELS image from the radiative transferred TNG50 data: 1) The left-most panel shows the image just after it has been processed by SKIRT; 2) Next, we apply an HST F814W filter to the image so we are no longer seeing all wavelengths of light; we also rebin the image to the same pixel scale as the CANDELS mosaics; 3) Next we convolve with the PSF of the telescope to replicate what th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The loss and accuracy curves for our network. The small data set size leads to the bumpier curves, es￾pecially in the validation set shown in the orange dashed line. Though the training set curves in solid purple contin￾ued to improve, the validation set curves plateaued, so we implemented early stopping to avoid overfitting. We use the weights from epoch 43 as our best model, noted by the grey dashed line [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Calibration curve of our Seed 626 network with the test set data. The Brier score and ECE, in addition to the overall accuracy, are denoted in the top center. A perfectly calibrated network would have all bins lying along the 1:1 dashed line. line. The area under the c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Box plot showing the number of angles (out of 6 possible angles) for which each merger was correctly classified as a function of the merger mass ratio in Seed 626. A box plot extends from the first quartile to the third quartile of the data, with the solid line marking…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Box plot similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual confusion matrix of galaxies in the test set. True negatives are in the upper left, and true postives are in the lower right. The contours are 3σ and 5σ overlayed simply to guide the eye to where the structure is in the Grad-CAM images. The left image is the inp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: UMAPs of the test set color-coded by stellar mass (left), and specific star formation rate right. The true nonmergers are triangles and the true mergers are circles. We exclude axes because the important information in a UMAP is in the relative distance between points…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: sSFRs of nonmergers that were classified correctly as nonmergers in orange and incorrectly classified as mergers in purple. Right: sSFRs of mergers that were correctly classified as mergers in purple and incorrectly as nonmergers in orange. The dashed and dotted…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Turp, M. D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1398

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1398 2018

  2. [2]

    2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05569

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    B., D ´ ıaz-Rodr ´ ıguez, N., Del Ser, J., et al

    Arrieta, A. B., D ´ ıaz-Rodr ´ ıguez, N., Del Ser, J., et al. 2019, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts,

    2019

  4. [4]

    Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1910.10045

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10045 1910

  5. [5]

    S., Villforth, C., Huertas-Company, M., et al

    Avirett-Mackenzie, M. S., Villforth, C., Huertas-Company, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 6915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae183 Galaxy Merger Identification atz∼1 19

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae183 2024

  6. [6]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006

    Baes, M., & Camps, P. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006 2015

  7. [7]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 196, 22, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22

    Baes, M., Verstappen, J., De Looze, I., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 196, 22, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 2011

  8. [8]

    W., Wilkinson, S., Ferreira, L., et al

    Bickley, R. W., Wilkinson, S., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 2533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2246

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2246 2024

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M

    Bickley, R. W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab806

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Ellison, S. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3717

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Teimoorinia, H., et al

    Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., Teimoorinia, H., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2934

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    J., & Franx, M

    Broadhurst, T. J., & Franx, M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, L1, doi: 10.1086/423786

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Brier, G. W. 1950, Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078⟨0001:VOFEIT⟩2.0.CO;2

    1950 doi

  6. [14]

    J., & H¨ außler, B

    Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., & H¨ außler, B. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 1460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts124

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 —

    Camps, P., & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 —. 2020, SKIRT 9: redesigning an advanced dust radiative transfer code to allow kinematics, line transfer and polarization by aligned dust grains, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2003.00721

    2015 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    K., Bekki, K., & Groves, B

    Cavanagh, M. K., Bekki, K., & Groves, B. A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1552

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001 —. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    2003 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

    H., & Fienberg, S

    DeGroot, M. H., & Fienberg, S. E. 1983, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 32, 12, doi: 10.2307/2987588

    1983 doi

  14. [24]

    2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29, 141, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2012.2211477

    Deng, L. 2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29, 141, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2012.2211477

    2012

  15. [25]

    W., & Dambre, J

    Dieleman, S., Willett, K. W., & Dambre, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv632 Dom ´ ınguez S´ anchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., & Fischer, J. L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomica...

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    T., Dale, D

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306

    2007 doi

  17. [27]

    J., Mundy, C., et al

    Duncan, K., Conselice, C. J., Mundy, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a

    2019 doi

  18. [28]

    1998, ApJ, 501, 643, doi: 10.1086/305829

    Dwek, E. 1998, ApJ, 501, 643, doi: 10.1086/305829

    1998 doi

  19. [29]

    J., Duncan, K., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Duncan, K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9b

    2020 doi

  20. [30]

    J., Kuchner, U., & Tohill, C.-B

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Kuchner, U., & Tohill, C.-B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66ea

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    L., Patton, D

    Ferreira, L., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2024a, Galaxy evolution in the post-merger regime I – Most merger-induced in-situ stellar mass growth happens post-coalescence, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06356

    arXiv

  22. [32]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    W., Ellison, S

    Ferreira, L., Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1885

    doi

  24. [34]

    Finkelstein, S. L. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, e037, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.26

    2016 doi

  25. [35]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 20Schechter et al

    2011 doi

  27. [37]

    A., Sutherland, R

    Groves, B., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 176, 438, doi: 10.1086/528711

    2008 doi

  28. [38]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24

    2013 doi

  29. [39]

    2015, Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.03385 Ivezi´ c,\., Kahn, S

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2015, Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.03385 Ivezi´ c,\., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c J. Bouwens, R., Aravena, M., ...

    2015 doi arXiv

  30. [40]

    Johnson, B. D. 2021, bd-j/sedpy: sedpy v0.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4582723

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    S., Mozena, M., Kocevski, D., et al

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Mozena, M., Kocevski, D., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/11

    2015 doi

  32. [42]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    Kaviraj, S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    2014 doi

  33. [43]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx126

    Kaviraj, S., Laigle, C., Kimm, T., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx126

    2017 doi

  34. [44]

    P., & Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. 2017, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

    2017 doi arXiv

  35. [45]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  36. [46]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, 8127, 81270J, doi: 10.1117/12.892762

    2011 doi

  37. [48]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    2008

  38. [49]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    2004 doi

  39. [50]

    B., McIntosh, D

    Mantha, K. B., McIntosh, D. H., Brennan, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3260

    2018 doi

  40. [51]

    L., et al

    Margalef-Bentabol, B., Wang, L., Marca, A. L., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348239

    2024 doi

  41. [52]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  42. [53]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    Pichon, C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    2018 doi

  43. [54]

    2020, UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. 2020, UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426

    2020 doi arXiv

  44. [55]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 2196, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14677.x

    Almaini, O. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 2196, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14677.x

    2009

  45. [56]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 464, 641, doi: 10.1086/177353

    1996 doi

  46. [57]

    P., Cooper, G., & Hauskrecht, M

    Naeini, M. P., Cooper, G., & Hauskrecht, M. 2015, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29, doi: 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9602

    2015 doi

  47. [58]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  48. [59]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2018 doi

  49. [60]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd34

    Nevin, R., Blecha, L., Comerford, J., & Greene, J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd34

    2019 doi

  50. [61]

    B., Ellis, R

    Newman, A. B., Ellis, R. S., Bundy, K., & Treu, T. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162

    2012 doi

  51. [62]

    Niculescu-Mizil, A., & Caruana, R. 2005, in Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, ICML ’05 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 625–632, doi: 10.1145/1102351.1102430

    2005

  52. [63]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb´ e, I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f

    2018 doi

  53. [64]

    C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al

    Omori, K. C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 679, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346743

    2023 doi

  54. [65]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1136

    Ouchi, M., Mobasher, B., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1136

    2009 doi

  55. [66]

    J., Wang, L., Trayford, J

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Trayford, J. W., Petrillo, C. E., & Tak, F. F. S. v. d. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935355 Galaxy Merger Identification atz∼1 21

    2019 doi

  56. [67]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  57. [68]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  58. [69]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    2015 doi

  59. [70]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    2019 doi

  60. [71]

    S., Snyder, G

    Rose, C., Kartaltepe, J. S., Snyder, G. F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f10 —. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dd4

    2023 doi

  61. [72]

    2014, A&A, 561, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322593

    Saftly, W., Baes, M., & Camps, P. 2014, A&A, 561, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322593

    2014 doi

  62. [73]

    2022, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938

    Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., Mellier, Y., et al. 2022, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938

    2022 doi

  63. [74]

    2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 437, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042363

    Schartmann, M., Meisenheimer, K., Camenzind, M., Wolf, S., & Henning, T. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 437, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042363

    2005 doi

  64. [75]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  65. [76]

    L., Genel, S., Terrazas, B., et al

    Schechter, A. L., Genel, S., Terrazas, B., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade791

    2025 doi

  66. [77]

    R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., et al

    Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., et al. 2020, International Journal of Computer Vision, 128, 336, doi: 10.1007/s11263-019-01228-7

    2020 doi

  67. [78]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 5560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3794 —

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 5560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3794 —. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 4747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1423

    2022 doi

  68. [79]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., Borrow, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2156

    2024 doi

  69. [80]

    D., Lintott, C., Willett, K

    Simmons, B. D., Lintott, C., Willett, K. W., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 4420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2587

    2017 doi

  70. [81]

    2013, Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1312.6034

    Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. 2013, Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1312.6034

    2013 doi arXiv

  71. [82]

    J., Simmons, B

    Smethurst, R. J., Simmons, B. D., G´ eron, T., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf506

    2025 doi

  72. [83]

    F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 3702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1059

    2019 doi

  73. [84]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  74. [85]

    1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    1972 doi

  75. [86]

    F., Vogelsberger, M., et al

    Torrey, P., Snyder, G. F., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2592

    2015 doi

  76. [87]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    2014 doi

  77. [88]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa137

    Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa137

    2020 doi

  78. [89]

    2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5312, doi: 10.21105/joss.05312

    Walmsley, M., Allen, C., Aussel, B., et al. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5312, doi: 10.21105/joss.05312

    2023 doi

  79. [90]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae287

    2024 doi

  80. [91]

    W., Galloway, M

    Willett, K. W., Galloway, M. A., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 4176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2568 ´Ciprijanovi´ c, A., Snyder, G. F., Nord, B., & Peek, J. E. G. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 32, 100390, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.