pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15069 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Probing the IMF in the Early Universe -- Direct measurements in the Bo\"otes I UFD with JWST/NIRCam

Keyi Ding , Mario Gennaro , Roberto J. Avila , Massimo Ricotti , Rachael L. Beaton , Martha L. Boyer , Thomas M. Brown , Annalisa Calamida
show 15 more authors
Santi Cassisi Vedant Chandra Roger E. Cohen Matteo Correnti Denija Crnojevi\'c Kareem El-Badry Marla Geha Puragra Guhathakurta Nitya Kallivayalil Evan N. Kirby Kristen. B. W. McQuinn Alessandro Savino Cheyanne Shariat Joshua D. Simon Daniel R. Weisz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 03:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords initial mass functionultra-faint dwarf galaxiesBoötes IJWSTlow metallicitystar formationluminosity function
0
0 comments X

The pith

The initial mass function measured in the ultra-faint dwarf Boötes I matches the Milky Way form at metallicities as low as one-hundredth solar.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper uses deep JWST/NIRCam imaging to resolve over ten thousand stars in Boötes I down to 0.15 solar masses and compares the observed luminosity function against synthetic color-magnitude diagrams. Three IMF functional forms are tested through forward modeling and simulation-based inference. A single power-law fails, while the best-fit broken power-law and lognormal parameters agree with Milky Way values inside the 68 percent confidence interval. The result is interpreted by treating Boötes I as a surviving analog of a high-redshift galaxy with stellar mass below 10^5 solar masses at redshift greater than or equal to 6.

Core claim

The best-fit broken power-law and lognormal IMF parameters in Boötes I are consistent with those of the Milky Way within 68 percent confidence level, indicating that star formation at metallicities around [Fe/H] ≈ -2.4 produces a stellar mass distribution similar to the present-day Milky Way.

What carries the argument

Forward modeling of synthetic color-magnitude diagrams combined with simulation-based inference to constrain the parameters of broken power-law and lognormal initial mass functions against the observed stellar luminosity function.

If this is right

  • Star formation in early-universe conditions with low metallicity yields the same distribution of stellar masses as in the Milky Way.
  • Ultra-faint dwarfs provide a usable local laboratory for the initial mass function at redshifts greater than or equal to 6.
  • Galaxy formation models at high redshift can adopt the standard Milky Way IMF without metallicity-dependent adjustments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the IMF remains universal, the predicted number of ionizing photons from the first galaxies stays consistent with local calibrations.
  • Similar JWST observations of additional ultra-faint dwarfs would test whether IMF consistency holds across galaxies with different merger histories.

Load-bearing premise

Boötes I can be treated as a direct local relic whose resolved stars faithfully record the initial mass function from high-redshift star formation without major later alteration by dynamics or binaries.

What would settle it

A deeper luminosity function measurement in Boötes I that lies outside the 68 percent confidence region of the Milky Way IMF parameters at the low-mass end.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15069 by Alessandro Savino, Annalisa Calamida, Cheyanne Shariat, Daniel R. Weisz, Denija Crnojevi\'c, Evan N. Kirby, Joshua D. Simon, Kareem El-Badry, Keyi Ding, Kristen. B. W. McQuinn, Mario Gennaro, Marla Geha, Martha L. Boyer, Massimo Ricotti, Matteo Correnti, Nitya Kallivayalil, Puragra Guhathakurta, Rachael L. Beaton, Roberto J. Avila, Roger E. Cohen, Santi Cassisi, Thomas M. Brown, Vedant Chandra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Digitized Sky Survey image of Bootes I. The black outlines show the approximate locations of the five ACS vis￾its from T. M. Brown et al. (2014). The solid colored squares show the locations of our F322W JWST observations. Each color corresponds to a visit, and each pair within a colored pair represents the two NIRCam modules. The dashed circle shows the projected half-light radius based on R. R. Mu˜noz et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: CMD of sources extracted by DOLPHOT. Left: All photometric sources are shown in gray, with those passing the data quality cuts highlighted in black. Middle: Sources passing the quality cuts, overplotted with a synthetic foreground stellar population from TRILEGAL (blue) and synthesized photometry of background galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) based on SED models (red), scaled by area to mat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Luminosity function of the input magnitudes (blue) and the recovered magnitudes (orange) of the artificial stars in the F150W (top) and F322W2 (bottom) filters. The ratio of these functions (black line) represents the photometric completeness as a function of magnitude. Red vertical dashed lines mark the 50% completeness limits, while the top x-axis displays the corresponding typical stellar masses based o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMD of Boo I main-sequence member stars, over￾laid with BaSTI α-enhanced isochrone (blue) and our O-en￾hanced isochrone (red), both having an age of 13.3 Gyr and [Fe/H] = -2.4, with labels indicating specific stellar masses. The red error bars indicate the typical photometric uncer￾tainties at each magnitude. ply two critical empirical calibrations: (1) a magnitude￾dependent color correction to account for… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Empirical model-data color correction. Left: Observed CMD with ridge line. Middle: Observed (blue) vs. uncorrected synthetic (red) ridge lines reveal systematic color offset. Right: Magnitude-dependent color correction derived from the ridge line difference. in F150W and F322W2, measured directly from the original ASTs data in each magnitude bin. For each star in magnitude bin i, we added correlated Gaussi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plots of the posterior distributions for the three IMF models, and the conditional posterior of the BPL model with Mb ∈ 0.5 ± 0.05. Vertical dashed lines indicate the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of the marginal distributions. Red lines denote reference measurements from the solar neighborhood [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative luminosity function of observed stars (orange dashed line) compared to posterior synthetic CMDs (gray lines). The synthetic samples represent 1000 realizations drawn from the posterior parameter distributions. The lower panels show the corresponding differences in cumulative distribution functions: ∆CDF = (observed CDF) − (mean of simulated CDFs). 6.2. Comparison to Literature Studies of Extraga… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two-dimensional histogram of the observed CMD (top-left panel). The remaining three panels show the correspond￾ing significance maps for each model, as defined in Equation 8. The maps are displayed using a diverging colormap: yellow indicates good agreement, blue regions indicate bins where the observed CMD contains more stars, and red regions indicate bins where the posterior CMD contains more stars [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Goodness-of-fit measurements for each IMF model. The histogram colors indicate the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals of Dpost, k, with the median marked by the orange dashed line. The red solid line denotes the observed value, Dpost, obs. The SPL model exhibits a substantially larger degree of inconsistency than the other two models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the best-fit lognormal characteristic mass with literature IMF values as a function of metallicity. The [Fe/H] represents the values adopted in each study and may vary for the same target. Marker shapes denote the literature sources, while colors represent the target objects. The canonical MW IMF value is shown as a dashed line. There is a mild trend for the characteristic mass to increase w… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relation between magnitude and log (1/SNR) in the F150W (left) and F322W2 (right) bands. The blue points show sources that pass the empirical SNR-based quality cut, while red points indicate rejected sources. B. ARTIFICIAL STAR TESTS As detailed in Section 2.6, the AST input catalog consists of 106 sources sampled around the Boo I main sequence, together with 2 × 105 sources uniformly distributed across t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: the input luminosity function of the artificial stars; Middle: the input CMD used for ASTs; Right: the recovered output CMD from ASTs after applying photometric quality cuts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The spectroscopic MDF of Boo I, with the blue line showing the [Fe/H] histogram and the orange curve showing the smooth probability density function by smoothing the histogram with a Gaussian Kernel Density Estimation. With fixed numbers of rounds and simulations, we use the procedure described in Section 4.4 to empirically determine the optimal combination of Gaussian kernel width γ and embedding dimensi… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Posterior corner plots from the convergence test, with blue lines marking the true (input) parameter values used to generate the reference CMDs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Corner plots of the posterior distributions for the three IMF models, where the IMF and stellar population param￾eters are fitted simultaneously. Vertical dashed lines mark the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of the marginal distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The dependence of the stellar initial mass function (IMF) on star-formation environment, particularly at low metallicities and high redshifts, remains poorly constrained. Ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs) are local fossils of high-redshift galaxies hosting old, metal-poor populations, and their resolved stellar populations provide unique pathways to constrain the sub-solar IMF. We investigate the low-mass IMF in the Bo\"otes I (Boo I) UFD with JWST/NIRCam, leveraging its capability to resolve over 10,000 stars reaching $\lesssim0.15 M_{\odot}$, obtaining one of the largest, deepest resolved stellar samples for UFDs. We explore three different functional forms of the IMF with machine learning and statistical techniques, combining forward modeling of synthetic color-magnitude diagrams with simulation-based inference. We find that a single power-law IMF fails to reproduce the observed luminosity function and also deviates from the canonical Salpeter IMF. Our best-fit broken power-law and lognormal IMF parameters are consistent with the Milky Way within 68% confidence level, providing evidence that star formation at metallicities as low as [Fe/H]$\approx-2.4$ follows a similar IMF as in the Milky Way. By treating Boo I as a local relic analogous to a high-redshift galaxy with a stellar mass of $\lesssim10^5 M_{\odot}$ at $z\gtrsim6$, our results provide evidence for the universality of the IMF across both local and high-redshift environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports JWST/NIRCam observations of the Boötes I ultra-faint dwarf galaxy, resolving over 10,000 stars down to ≲0.15 M⊙. Using forward modeling of synthetic color-magnitude diagrams combined with simulation-based inference, the authors fit single power-law, broken power-law, and lognormal IMF forms. They find the single power-law inadequate while the best-fit broken power-law and lognormal parameters are consistent with Milky Way values within 68% CL, concluding that star formation at [Fe/H]≈−2.4 follows a similar IMF and treating Boötes I as a local analog to high-redshift galaxies with stellar mass ≲10^5 M⊙ at z≳6 to argue for IMF universality.

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies one of the deepest resolved low-mass IMF constraints in a metal-poor UFD, bridging local fossils to high-redshift star formation. The use of simulation-based inference for forward modeling of the luminosity function is a clear methodological strength, allowing direct comparison to external data without circularity in the fitting. This has potential implications for star-formation physics across metallicities and epochs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that best-fit broken power-law and lognormal parameters are consistent with the Milky Way at 68% CL is load-bearing for the universality conclusion, yet the abstract provides no details on how systematic uncertainties (binary fractions, completeness corrections, or dynamical processing) enter the simulation-based inference; these effects could shift the posteriors and undermine the reported consistency.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph): the extension to high-redshift universality rests on Boötes I being an unaltered relic with negligible mass segregation or binary disruption relative to a z≳6 galaxy of similar mass; without direct constraints on these processes from the data, the low-mass IMF inference risks being biased toward Milky Way values even if the true primordial IMF differed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'machine learning and statistical techniques' without naming the specific SBI implementation or priors; adding a brief methods reference would improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address the two major comments point by point below, clarifying how the simulation-based inference framework handles the relevant systematics and justifying the high-redshift analogy while acknowledging its assumptions. Revisions will be made to the abstract as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that best-fit broken power-law and lognormal parameters are consistent with the Milky Way at 68% CL is load-bearing for the universality conclusion, yet the abstract provides no details on how systematic uncertainties (binary fractions, completeness corrections, or dynamical processing) enter the simulation-based inference; these effects could shift the posteriors and undermine the reported consistency.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit mention of how systematics are treated. The full manuscript describes a forward-modeling approach in which synthetic CMDs are generated with a fixed binary fraction and mass-ratio distribution drawn from Milky Way observations, completeness and photometric errors are injected via artificial-star tests performed on the actual JWST images, and dynamical processing is incorporated by adopting the observed structural parameters of Boötes I (which imply long relaxation times at the low-mass end). These ingredients are propagated through the simulation-based inference so that the reported 68 % CL consistency already reflects the modeled uncertainties. We will revise the abstract to include a concise clause stating that binary fractions, completeness corrections, and dynamical effects are included in the forward modeling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph): the extension to high-redshift universality rests on Boötes I being an unaltered relic with negligible mass segregation or binary disruption relative to a z≳6 galaxy of similar mass; without direct constraints on these processes from the data, the low-mass IMF inference risks being biased toward Milky Way values even if the true primordial IMF differed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the JWST data do not furnish direct, independent constraints on mass segregation or binary disruption. The manuscript instead relies on Boötes I’s low stellar mass (≲10^5 M⊙), low central density, and long two-body relaxation time (estimated from its structural parameters and compared with N-body simulations in the literature) to argue that dynamical processing has not significantly altered the low-mass end of the present-day mass function. Binary populations are modeled with a standard fraction and mass-ratio distribution; any residual bias would therefore be common to both the Boötes I and Milky Way analyses. We will expand the final sentence of the abstract to reference these supporting arguments from the main text, making the analogy more transparent while preserving the cautious wording already present. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: IMF fit derived from independent Boötes I observations

full rationale

The paper performs forward modeling of synthetic CMDs against the observed JWST luminosity function in Boötes I using simulation-based inference to constrain broken power-law and lognormal IMF parameters. These parameters are then compared post-hoc to Milky Way values at 68% CL. No step reduces by construction to prior fits, self-citations, or ansatzes; the central result is a data-driven consistency check rather than a tautology. The analog treatment of Boötes I as a high-z relic is an interpretive framing, not a load-bearing derivation that forces the outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result depends on fitted IMF shape parameters and several domain assumptions about stellar models and galaxy properties; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • IMF power-law slopes and break mass
    Fitted via simulation-based inference to match the observed luminosity function.
  • Lognormal characteristic mass and dispersion
    Fitted parameters for the alternative functional form.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution isochrones accurately predict luminosities and colors for low-mass stars at [Fe/H] ≈ -2.4.
    Required to generate synthetic CMDs for comparison.
  • domain assumption Distance, age, and reddening of Boötes I are known to sufficient precision.
    Used to place observed stars on the CMD.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1389 out tokens · 63293 ms · 2026-05-15T03:15:21.666746+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    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. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    R., & Meyer, M

    Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  3. [3]

    Bate, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu795

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu795 2014

  4. [4]

    Bate, M. R. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz103 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3629

    Baumgardt, H., Faller, J., Meinhold, N., McGovern-Greco, C., & Hilker, M. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3629

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3629 2022

  6. [6]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 647, L111, doi: 10.1086/507324

    work page doi:10.1086/507324 2006

  7. [7]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1

    Bialy, S., & Sternberg, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1 2019

  8. [8]

    S., & Ricotti, M

    Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1859, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1859

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1859 2009

  9. [9]

    S., & Ricotti, M

    Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M. 2011, ApJ, 741, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/17 2011

  10. [10]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/91 2014

  11. [11]

    2020, A&A Rv, 28, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00127-y

    Cassisi, S., & Salaris, M. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00127-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-020-00127-y 2020

  12. [12]

    Galactic

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  13. [13]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Chandra, V., & Gennaro, M. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #237, 329.02

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    E., Gennaro, M., Correnti, M., McQuinn, K

    Cohen, R. E., Gennaro, M., Correnti, M., McQuinn, K. B. W., & Chandra, V. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4720

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4720 2026

  15. [15]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J., & Louppe, G. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1912789117 2020

  16. [16]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013 http://ascl.net/1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013 http://ascl.net/1608.013

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    work page doi:10.1086/316630 2000

  18. [18]

    J., Choi, Y., Savino, A., et al

    Durbin, M. J., Choi, Y., Savino, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae00c8 2025

  19. [19]

    R., & Quataert, E

    El-Badry, K., Weisz, D. R., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx436

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx436 2017

  20. [20]

    Filion, C., Platais, I., Wyse, R. F. G., & Kozhurina-Platais, V. 2022, ApJ, 939, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9383

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9383 2022

  21. [21]

    Filion, C., Wyse, R. F. G., Richstein, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4020

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4020 2024

  22. [22]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011362

    Frebel, A. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011362

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201011362 2010

  23. [23]

    E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R

    Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2016, ApJ, 826, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/110

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/110 2016

  24. [24]

    X., et al

    Geha, M., Pelliccia, D., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10200, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10200

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10200 2026

  25. [25]

    M., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Geha, M., Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/29 2013

  26. [26]

    2026, starwave, v0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19863170

    Gennaro, M., Ding, K., & Chandra, V. 2026, starwave, v0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19863170

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19863170 2026

  27. [27]

    M., et al

    Gennaro, M., Tchernyshyov, K., Brown, T. M., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 855, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa973

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa973

  28. [28]

    2018b, ApJ, 863, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaceff

    Gennaro, M., Geha, M., Tchernyshyov, K., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 863, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaceff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaceff

  29. [29]

    Girardi, L., Barbieri, M., Groenewegen, M. A. T., et al. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 26, Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way, ed. A. Miglio, J. Montalb´ an, & A. Noels, 165, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18418-5 17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18418-5 2012

  30. [30]

    Automatic Posterior Transformation for Likelihood-Free Inference

    Greenberg, D. S., Nonnenmacher, M., & Macke, J. H. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.07488, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.07488

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.07488 2019

  31. [31]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 2008

  32. [32]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  33. [33]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 950, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19306.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19306.x 2011

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [35]

    S., Anderson, J., Dotter, A., et al

    Kalirai, J. S., Anderson, J., Dotter, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/110 2013

  36. [36]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453 2023

  37. [37]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  38. [38]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Kroupa, P., Weidner, C., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., et al. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, Vol. 5, 115, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 2013

  39. [39]

    V., Muratore, F., Milone, A

    Legnardi, M. V., Muratore, F., Milone, A. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556239 2025

  40. [40]

    Lemaire, L., Jay, F., Lee, I.-H., Csill´ ery, K., & Blum, M. G. B. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1601.04096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1601.04096 26

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1601.04096 2016

  41. [41]

    J., Bassetto, G., et al

    Lueckmann, J.-M., Goncalves, P. J., Bassetto, G., et al. 2017, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett, Vol. 30 (Curran Associates, Inc.). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2017/ file/addfa9b7e234254d26e9c7f2af1005cb-Paper.pdf Mu˜ noz,...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b 2017

  42. [42]

    T., Krumholz, M

    Myers, A. T., Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2011, ApJ, 735, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/1/49 2011

  43. [43]

    Offner, S. S. R., Clark, P. C., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 53–75, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch003

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  44. [44]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/96

    Okamoto, S., Arimoto, N., Yamada, Y., & Onodera, M. 2012, ApJ, 744, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/96 2012

  45. [45]

    Pontzen and F

    Pacifici, C., Charlot, S., Blaizot, J., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2002, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x 2012

  46. [46]

    Gardner, J. P. 2013, ApJL, 762, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/1/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/1/l15 2013

  47. [47]

    2016, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed

    Papamakarios, G., & Murray, I. 2016, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, & R. Garnett, Vol. 29 (Curran Associates, Inc.). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2016/ file/6aca97005c68f1206823815f66102863-Paper.pdf

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5 2021

  49. [49]

    Ricotti, M., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2005, ApJ, 629, 259, doi: 10.1086/431415

    work page doi:10.1086/431415 2005

  50. [50]

    Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., & Bullock, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21432.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21432.x 2012

  51. [51]

    D., & Loeb, A

    Safarzadeh, M., Simon, J. D., & Loeb, A. 2022, ApJ, 930, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac626e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac626e 2022

  52. [52]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  53. [53]

    R., Li, T

    Sandford, N. R., Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fe5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fe5 2026

  54. [54]

    Maps of Dust IR Emission for Use in Estimation of Reddening and CMBR Foregrounds

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  55. [55]

    Sharda, P., & Krumholz, M. R. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2921

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2921 2022

  56. [56]

    2025, PASP, 137, 104103, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae11d2

    Shariat, C., El-Badry, K., Gennaro, M., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 104103, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae11d2

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae11d2 2025

  57. [57]

    M., Mashonkina, L

    Sitnova, T. M., Mashonkina, L. I., Tatarnikov, A. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab786 STScI Development Team. 2018, synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.001 http://ascl.net/1811.001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab786 2021

  58. [58]

    2025, Version 4 of the NIRCam Wisp Templates: Wisp Characterization, Stability, and Validation Testing, Tech

    Sunnquist, B., Boyer, M., Brooks, B., et al. 2025, Version 4 of the NIRCam Wisp Templates: Wisp Characterization, Stability, and Validation Testing, Tech. Rep. Technical Report JWST-STScI-009225, STScI

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    S., & Krumholz, M

    Tanvir, T. S., & Krumholz, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3581

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3581 2024

  60. [60]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505, doi: 10.21105/joss.02505

    Tejero-Cantero, A., Boelts, J., Deistler, M., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505, doi: 10.21105/joss.02505

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02505 2020

  61. [61]

    VandenBerg, D. A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3270 2023

  62. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/72

    Edvardsson, B. 2014, ApJ, 794, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/72 2014

  63. [63]

    Ferguson, J. W. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2996

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2996 2022

  64. [64]

    E., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  65. [65]

    T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al

    Warfield, J. T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 23, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acbb72

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acbb72 2023

  66. [66]

    C., Fragione, G., Kremer, K., et al

    Weatherford, N. C., Fragione, G., Kremer, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd79c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd79c 2021

  67. [67]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/136 2015

  68. [68]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Savino, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600 2024

  69. [69]

    2000, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed

    Williams, C., & Seeger, M. 2000, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. T. Leen, T. Dietterich, & V. Tresp, Vol. 13 (MIT Press). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2000/ file/19de10adbaa1b2ee13f77f679fa1483a-Paper.pdf

    work page 2000

  70. [70]

    Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., Houdashelt, M. L., et al. 2002, NewA, 7, 395, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00156-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(02)00156-2 2002

  71. [71]

    2023, A&A, 670, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244919

    Yan, Z., Jerabkova, T., & Kroupa, P. 2023, A&A, 670, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244919

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244919 2023

  72. [72]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad73a2

    Yasui, C., Izumi, N., Saito, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad73a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad73a2 2024