pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03934 · v1 · pith:CL6YJWLEnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

Spectral Handling and Estimation of AGN Parameters (SHEAP), The first AGN fitting GPU-based code

F. \'Avila-Vera , P. S\'anchez-S\'aez , V. Motta , S. Bernal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 08:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM
keywords active galactic nucleispectral fittingemission linesGPU computingspectral decompositionJAXAGN parameters
0
0 comments X

The pith

SHEAP fits AGN spectra reliably using JAX on GPUs at roughly 1/60 the runtime of pPXF.

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

The paper introduces SHEAP as a modular spectral-fitting code built on JAX to decompose AGN spectra into continuum, host-galaxy, FeII, and emission-line components. It demonstrates that the fits match literature values for the main parameters across CIV, MgII, H beta, and H alpha regions, with 85 to 100 percent of objects falling inside the plus or minus 0.3 dex band and reduced chi-square values near unity. The key practical result is that the fitting stage runs in only about 1.7 percent of the time reported for pPXF, an improvement of roughly 100 times, while still supplying uncertainty estimates and physical tying rules.

Core claim

SHEAP delivers reliable AGN spectral decompositions at substantially lower computational cost. Across four comparison samples the recovered parameters agree with prior measurements to the level that 85 to 100 percent of objects lie inside the plus or minus 0.3 dex band, reduced chi-square distributions are close to unity, and the fitting stage requires only about 1.7 percent of the computational time reported by pPXF.

What carries the argument

A JAX-based modular spectral model combining continuum, host-galaxy template, FeII pseudo-continuum, and multi-component emission lines, optimized with gradient descent, automatic differentiation, vectorization, and just-in-time compilation under parameter-tying and physically motivated constraints.

If this is right

  • Upcoming large spectroscopic surveys can be processed at scale without sacrificing physical constraints or uncertainty quantification.
  • Stable convergence is achieved in the H beta region where previous methods often require manual intervention.
  • The same modular structure can be applied to the CIV, MgII, and H alpha regions with comparable accuracy.
  • Reproducibility is improved because the model is defined in code rather than through interactive GUI choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported speedup opens the possibility of exploring larger parameter spaces or adding more emission-line components that were previously too expensive.
  • Because the code is written in JAX it can be combined with differentiable pipelines for joint photometric-spectroscopic inference.
  • The modular design could be extended to time-variable spectra by treating epoch-to-epoch parameters as additional tied variables.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen modular components and tying rules reproduce real AGN spectra without introducing systematic bias, especially in blended regions such as H beta.

What would settle it

A blind test on an independent AGN sample in which more than 15 percent of the SHEAP-derived line widths or fluxes fall outside the plus or minus 0.3 dex band relative to an established pipeline while the reduced chi-square remains near unity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03934 by F. \'Avila-Vera, P. S\'anchez-S\'aez, S. Bernal, V. Motta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Redshift distribution by sample. Right: Mean signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) distribution by sample. Sample names are shown at the top of the figure, with the number of objects in parentheses, and the distribution of S/N in DR16 has an example of the expected distribution 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 red 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fraction of objects Wu&Shen22 (500) Pan+25 (500) Sánchez-Sáez+18 (151) Bernal+25 (413) Wu&S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Right: Distribution of reduced χ 2 by sample, normalized to the fraction of objects in each sample. The vertical step line marks χ 2 red = 1. Left: Relation between signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and the reduced chi-square, χ 2 red. Each color represent a different sample. In these tests, all emission-line profiles are modeled with Gaussian components, and the full list of emission lines used in each model is… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the logarithmic differences, log10(XSHEAP) − log10(Xlit), for the set of spectral parameters compared in each sample. Panel A shows against Wu&Shen22, while Panel B shows against Pan et al. (2025). In each panel, the legend reports the compared parameters. The grey dashed line indicates the 1:1 relation, while the black dashed￾lines demark the ±0.3 dex. 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 lo g 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between our measurements and those of Wu&Shen22. Top: C iv emission-line FWHM in logarithmic scale. Bot￾tom: Monochromatic continuum luminosity at 1350 Å in logarithmic scale. In both panels, the black dashed line indicates the 1:1 relation, while the gray dashed lines mark the ±0.3 dex region. We compare our measurements with the Civ FWHM and L1350 values reported by Wu&Shen22, combining broad … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A. Overall, we find good agreement with Wu&Shen22, with no strong increase in scatter toward lower S/N, although the largest outliers occur preferentially at the lowest S/N. 3.2. The Pan+25 sample The second test uses DESI DR1 spectra, which provide higher spectral resolution than SDSS and a uniform wavelength sam￾pling across all spectra. We draw a subsample from the DESI DR1 value-added catalog v1.7 (her… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For FWHMMg II, 96.6% of the DAS values and 97.0% of the FSF values lie within the ±0.3 dex band, with median biases of +0.12 and −0.02 dex, respectively. For L3000, the agreement is tighter: 99.20% of the DAS values and 96.00% of the corrected FSF values lie within the band, with median biases of −0.02 and −0.07 dex, respectively. These results indicate that the contin￾uum luminosity is robustly recovered,… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Since this sample is based on SDSS spectra, we resample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between our results and Pan et al. (2025) for the RFeII in logarithmic scale. The black dashed line indicates the 1:1 rela￾tion, while the grey lines demark the ±0.3 dex. Article number, page 8 of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bottom. For L5100, 77.48% of the objects lie within the ±0.3 dex band, with a median bias of −0.13 dex and NMAD = 0.17 dex. This offset is likely driven by differences in host-galaxy subtraction, since the k-star method relies on the Ca ii K absorption feature, whereas our approach uses a broader set of spectral features. For L3000, the agreement is stronger: 99.12% of the 117 objects with available catalo… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A, and their dependence on S/N is shown in Fig. 10A. The largest discrepancies occur preferentially at low S/N, but we do not find evidence for a strong systematic trend with S/N. 3.4. The Bernal+25 sample To evaluate the performance of our method in a low-redshift, host-dominated sample, we use the dataset presented by Bernal+25. This sample spans 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.14 and was ana￾lyzed with a customized pPXF w… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between our measurements and those of Bernal+25. Top: Hα emission-line FWHM in logarithmic scale. Bot￾tom: Hα emission-line luminosity in logarithmic scale. In both panels, the black dashed line indicates the 1:1 relation, while the gray lines mark the ±0.3 dex region. Point colors represent the EW reported by Bernal+25. the Pan+25, Sánchez-Sáez+18, and Bernal+25 samples. The Wu&Shen+22 sample … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between our results and Bernal+25 for the monochromatic continuum luminosity at 5,100 Å in log scale.The black dashed line indicates the 1:1 relation, while the grey lines demark the ±0.3 dex. The comparison with literature measurements shows that SHEAP recovers the main AGN spectral parameters with gen￾erally good agreement. The fraction of objects within the ±0.3 dex band is typically above 9… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In the coming years, the number of discovered active galactic nuclei (AGN) is expected to increase significantly due to upcoming spectroscopic surveys. This growth will challenge current analysis and modeling techniques, requiring scalable methods for large, heterogeneous datasets with diverse signal-to-noise ratios, spectral resolutions, and host-galaxy contamination. We present SHEAP (Spectral Handling and Estimation of AGN Parameters), a spectral-fitting framework designed to analyze large AGN samples efficiently while preserving physical interpretability, reproducibility, and robust uncertainty estimation. SHEAP uses JAX, a Python GPU-powered framework, to implement a flexible model with modular components, including continuum, host galaxy, FeII pseudo-continuum, and multi-component emission lines, together with parameter tying and physically motivated constraints. By combining gradient-based optimization with automatic differentiation, vectorization, and just-in-time compilation, SHEAP achieves stable convergence in blended regions, such as H$\beta$, while substantially reducing runtime. We compare SHEAP measurements with literature results and public fitting pipelines across four samples covering the CIV, MgII, H$\beta$, and H$\alpha$ regions. We find good agreement for the main AGN spectral parameters, with $\sim85$--$100%$ of objects lying within the $\pm0.3$ dex band and reduced chi-square distributions close to unity. Relative to the runtime reported by \citet{2026Bernal} using \texttt{pPXF}, the fitting stage requires only $\sim1.7%$ of the computational time, corresponding to an improvement of approximately $100$ times. These results show that \texttt{SHEAP} delivers reliable AGN spectral decompositions at substantially lower computational cost, making it suitable for massive spectroscopic datasets.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents SHEAP, a JAX-based GPU-accelerated framework for fitting AGN spectra using modular components (continuum, host galaxy, FeII pseudo-continuum, and multi-component emission lines with tying rules and constraints). It reports good agreement with literature values across CIV, MgII, Hβ, and Hα regions (~85–100% of objects within ±0.3 dex, reduced χ² near unity) and a ~100× speedup in the fitting stage relative to pPXF (~1.7% of the reported runtime).

Significance. If the performance and reliability claims hold, SHEAP could enable scalable processing of large spectroscopic AGN samples from upcoming surveys while maintaining physical interpretability. The use of automatic differentiation, vectorization, and JIT compilation for gradient-based optimization is a clear technical strength for reproducibility and speed. However, the validation relies entirely on agreement with external pipelines rather than independent tests, which limits the strength of the reliability conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (comparison)] Abstract and comparison section: the central reliability claim rests on 85–100% of objects lying within the ±0.3 dex band and reduced χ² ≈ 1, but the manuscript provides no details on model implementation, convergence criteria, or how error bars were derived from the JAX optimization; this directly limits verification of the performance claim.
  2. [Method (§3) and Results (§4)] Method and results sections: the modular model with tying rules for blended regions such as Hβ is presented as physically motivated, yet no cross-check against independent constraints (reverberation mapping, photoionization grids, or untied profile fits) is shown; agreement with other pipelines that may employ comparable FeII templates and tying can occur even if both are systematically offset from truth.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title and Introduction] The title's claim of being 'the first AGN fitting GPU-based code' should be supported by a brief literature survey in the introduction to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Figures and Tables] Figure captions and table legends lack explicit definitions of the exact parameter sets being compared (e.g., which line widths or fluxes are included in the ±0.3 dex statistic).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of SHEAP's reliability and validation. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and §4 (comparison): the central reliability claim rests on 85–100% of objects lying within the ±0.3 dex band and reduced χ² ≈ 1, but the manuscript provides no details on model implementation, convergence criteria, or how error bars were derived from the JAX optimization; this directly limits verification of the performance claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit details on these technical aspects are required for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we will expand §3 with a new subsection describing the modular JAX model structure, the gradient-based optimizer settings, the convergence criteria (gradient-norm tolerance and iteration limits), and the uncertainty estimation procedure based on the Hessian via JAX's automatic differentiation. These additions will directly support the claims in the abstract and §4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Method (§3) and Results (§4): the modular model with tying rules for blended regions such as Hβ is presented as physically motivated, yet no cross-check against independent constraints (reverberation mapping, photoionization grids, or untied profile fits) is shown; agreement with other pipelines that may employ comparable FeII templates and tying can occur even if both are systematically offset from truth.

    Authors: We concur that external physical constraints would provide stronger validation than pipeline-to-pipeline agreement alone. Reverberation-mapping lags and photoionization grids are unavailable for the majority of the test objects, so a full cross-check is not feasible with the current samples. We will revise §4 and the discussion to explicitly acknowledge this limitation, to frame the multi-pipeline comparison as a consistency test, and to outline how future work could incorporate available RM subsets. We will also add a short comparison of tied versus untied fits on a representative sub-sample. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: implementation validated against external literature benchmarks

full rationale

The paper introduces a software tool (SHEAP) for spectral fitting and validates its parameter outputs via direct comparison to independent literature pipelines on four samples, reporting agreement fractions and reduced chi-square values. Computational speedup is stated relative to a previously reported pPXF runtime from a cited work. No derivation chain exists that reduces a claimed prediction or physical result to the paper's own fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. The core claims rest on external agreement rather than internal re-use of fitted quantities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Performance claims rest on the domain assumption that the chosen modular components plus tying rules reproduce real spectra without bias, and on the representativeness of the four comparison samples; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond standard spectral fitting.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The modular components (continuum, host galaxy, FeII, multi-component lines) plus tying and physical constraints accurately model AGN spectra
    Invoked to interpret the agreement with literature values as evidence of reliability

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5863 in / 1285 out tokens · 25704 ms · 2026-06-28T08:58:59.015334+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Error estimation in astronomy: A guide

    Andrae, R. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1009.2755

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    1993

  3. [3]

    J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Article number, page 11 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J.,...

    2013

  4. [4]

    E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al

    Bauer, F. E., Lira, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2023, The Messenger, 190, 34

    2023

  5. [5]

    2026, A&A, 707, A206

    Bernal, S., Sánchez-Sáez, P., Arévalo, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A206

    2026

  6. [6]

    2025, A&A, 694, A127

    Bernal, S., Sánchez-Sáez, P., Arévalo, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A127

    2025

  7. [7]

    Blanton, M. R. & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734

    2007

  8. [8]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, É., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144

    2012

  9. [9]

    2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, V ol

    Borne, K., Accomazzi, A., Bloom, J., et al. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, V ol. 2010, P6

    2009

  10. [10]

    Boroson, T. A. & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109

    1992

  11. [11]

    2021, JAX: Autograd and XLA, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2111.002

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2021, JAX: Autograd and XLA, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2111.002

    2021

  12. [12]

    Brigham, E. O. 1974, The fast Fourier Transform

    1974

  13. [13]

    & Charlot, S

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

    2003

  14. [14]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4051

    Calderone, G., Nicastro, L., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4051

    2017

  15. [15]

    2012, pPXF: Penalized Pixel-Fitting stellar kinematics extraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    Cappellari, M. 2012, pPXF: Penalized Pixel-Fitting stellar kinematics extraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    2012

  16. [16]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  17. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    2023

  18. [18]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    2004

  19. [19]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  20. [20]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasi ´nska, G., & Gomes, J. M. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    2018, A&A, 620, A82

    Circosta, C., Mainieri, V ., Padovani, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A82

    2018

  22. [22]

    C., Banerji, M., & Richards, G

    Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., & Richards, G. T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 647

    2016

  23. [23]

    C., Banerji, M., et al

    Coatman, L., Hewett, P. C., Banerji, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2120

    2017

  24. [24]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & George, I. M. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 117

    2003

  25. [25]

    Dalalyan, A. S. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.04752 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    2020, The DeepMind JAX Ecosys- tem

    DeepMind, Babuschkin, I., Baumli, K., et al. 2020, The DeepMind JAX Ecosys- tem

    2020

  27. [27]

    Dietrich, M., Appenzeller, I., Vestergaard, M., & Wagner, S. J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 581

    2002

  28. [28]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 581

    Dong, X., Wang, T., Wang, J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 581

    2008

  29. [29]

    C., et al

    Dong, X.-B., Wang, J.-G., Ho, L. C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 86

    2011

  30. [30]

    2024, PuDu-Astro/DASpec: DASpec: A code for spectral decomposition of active galactic nuclei

    Du, P. 2024, PuDu-Astro/DASpec: DASpec: A code for spectral decomposition of active galactic nuclei

    2024

  31. [31]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    1999

  32. [32]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5827

    Fu, Y ., Cappellari, M., Mao, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5827

    2023

  33. [33]

    2022, A&A, 668, A155

    Galan, A., Vernardos, G., Peel, A., Courbin, F., & Starck, J.-L. 2022, A&A, 668, A155

    2022

  34. [34]

    Garcia-Rissmann, A., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Sigut, T. A. A., & Pradhan, A. K. 2012, ApJ, 751, 7

    2012

  35. [35]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    2000

  36. [36]

    Grandi, S. A. 1982, ApJ, 255, 25

    1982

  37. [37]

    Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122

    2005

  38. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 49

    Gu, A., Huang, X., Sheu, W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 49

    2022

  39. [39]

    2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y ., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1809.008

    2018

  40. [40]

    M., Alexander, D

    Harrison, C. M., Alexander, D. M., Mullaney, J. R., & Swinbank, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3306

    2014

  41. [41]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

    2018

  42. [42]

    W., Baldry, I

    Hogg, D. W., Baldry, I. K., Blanton, M. R., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2002, arXiv e- prints, astro Hutsemékers, D., Marin, F., Agís González, B., Acosta Pulido, J.-A., & Kokubo, M. 2026, A&A, 707, A17 Ili´c, D., Oknyansky, V ., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A13 Ili´c, D., Raki´c, N., & Popovi´c, L. ˇC. 2023, ApJS, 267, 19

    2002

  43. [43]

    Jalan, P., Rakshit, S., Woo, J.-J., Kotilainen, J., & Stalin, C. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, L11

    2023

  44. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825

    2012

  45. [45]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  46. [46]

    Kellermann, K. I. 2015, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 313, Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed. F. Massaro, C. C. Cheung, E. Lopez, & A. Siemiginowska, 190–195

    2015

  47. [47]

    Khachikian, E. Y . & Weedman, D. W. 1974, ApJ, 192, 581

    1974

  48. [48]

    C., & Im, M

    Kim, M., Ho, L. C., & Im, M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 702

    2006

  49. [49]

    & Pounds, K

    King, A. & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115

    2015

  50. [50]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6980 Kovaˇcevi´c, J., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., & Dimitrijevi´c, M. S. 2010, ApJS, 189, 15 Kovaˇcevi´c, J., Popovi ´c, L. ˇC., & Kollatschny, W. 2014, Advances in Space Re- search, 54, 1347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    C., Ward, M

    Landt, H., Bentz, M. C., Ward, M. J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 282

    2008

  52. [52]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 216

    Layek, N., Nandi, P., Naik, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 216

    2025

  53. [53]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8

    2020

  54. [54]

    2019, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 152, 166

    Ma, L., Liu, Y ., Zhang, X., et al. 2019, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 152, 166

    2019

  55. [55]

    Mainieri, R.I

    Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler, 251 Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Lira, P., Netzer, H., & Capellupo, D. M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 187

    2009

  57. [57]

    A., Banerji, M., et al

    Merloni, A., Alexander, D. A., Banerji, M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 42

    2019

  58. [58]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340 Moré, J

    Michalewicz, K., Millon, M., Dux, F., & Courbin, F. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340 Moré, J. J. 1978, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Berlin Springer Verlag, V ol. 630, 105–116

    2023

  59. [59]

    2023, Fast- SpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra, As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    Moustakas, J., Buhler, J., Scholte, D., Dey, B., & Khederlarian, A. 2023, Fast- SpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra, As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    2023

  60. [60]

    R., Alexander, D

    Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Fine, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 622

    2013

  61. [61]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

    2015

  62. [62]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non- Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python

    2014

  63. [63]

    2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 35

    Padovani, P. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 35

    2017

  64. [64]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rev., 25, 2

    2017

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 48

    Pan, Z., Jiang, L., Guo, W.-J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 48

    2025

  66. [66]

    J., Ho, L

    Park, D., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Laor, A. 2022, ApJS, 258, 38 Popovi´c, L. ˇC. 2020, Open Astronomy, 29, 1 Popovi´c, L. ˇC., Kovaˇcevi´c-Dojˇcinovi´c, J., & Marˇceta-Mandi´c, S. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3180

    2022

  67. [67]

    H., Teukolsky, S

    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numer- ical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing Raki´c, N. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1624

    1992

  68. [68]

    S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G. 2017, ApJS, 229, 39

    2017

  69. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 153

    Ren, W., Guo, H., Shen, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 153

    2024

  70. [70]

    T., Kruczek, N

    Richards, G. T., Kruczek, N. E., Gallagher, S. C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 167

    2011

  71. [71]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470

    2006

  72. [72]

    J., Mazuk, S., Puetter, R

    Rudy, R. J., Mazuk, S., Puetter, R. C., & Hamann, F. 2000, ApJ, 539, 166

    2000

  73. [73]

    Saleh, R. A. & Ehsanes Saleh, A. K. M. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.04564 Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jiménez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Lira, P., Mejía-Restrepo, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 87

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

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

    2011

  75. [75]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    1998

  76. [76]

    O., Canalizo, G., Hiner, K

    Sexton, R. O., Canalizo, G., Hiner, K. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 101

    2019

  77. [77]

    O., Matzko, W., Darden, N., Canalizo, G., & Gorjian, V

    Sexton, R. O., Matzko, W., Darden, N., Canalizo, G., & Gorjian, V . 2021, MN- RAS, 500, 2871

    2021

  78. [78]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    2011

  79. [79]

    2024, A&A, 691, A308

    Siudek, M., Pucha, R., Mezcua, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A308

    2024

  80. [80]

    Storey, P. J. & Hummer, D. G. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 41

    1995

Showing first 80 references.