Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 91 references

SYNTHESIZER now integrates photoionised gas emission into synthetic galaxy spectra

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:24 UTC pith:WG5E5MHJ

load-bearing objection Solid, useful software paper; the single-zone Cloudy-per-particle mapping is a real limitation but exactly the kind of thing a referee can push on without sinking the paper. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27467 v1 pith:WG5E5MHJ submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.GA

Stellar photoionisation modelling in SYNTHESIZER

Aswin P. Vijayan , Stephen M. Wilkins , Sophie L. Newman , Christopher C. Lovell , William J. Roper , Sabrina Berger , Thomas Harvey , Jack C. Turner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords photoionisation modellingnebular emissionsynthetic observationsstellar population synthesisHII regionsspectral diagnosticscosmological simulationsemission lines
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

SYNTHESIZER, an open-source package for generating synthetic galaxy observations, now includes emission from photoionised gas. The paper integrates stellar population synthesis grids with the Cloudy photoionisation code, allowing parametric and simulation-based galaxies to be rendered with nebular line and continuum emission. A systematic exploration shows which modelling assumptions most affect line luminosities, diagnostic line ratios, and UV continuum slopes. The package is demonstrated on a toy galaxy, a TNG50 galaxy, and the full EAGLE simulation, where the default model reproduces observed Hα luminosity functions and equivalent width distributions at z≈2.2.

Core claim

The central claim is that SYNTHESIZER provides a flexible, physically motivated framework for modelling stellar and nebular emissions, serving as a vital link between theory and observations. The paper argues that processing simple stellar population spectra through Cloudy with a carefully chosen default configuration—spherical geometry with inner radius 0.01 pc, a reference ionisation parameter that scales with the cube root of the ionising photon rate, gas-phase metallicity matching the stellar metallicity, Jenkins (2009) depletion with F*=0.5, and Orion-type grains—yields reliable predictions across a wide range of ages, metallicities, and galaxy types. The parameter exploration quantifie

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the pre-computed spectral grid: each simple stellar population (SSP) from a stellar population synthesis model, such as BPASS, is run through the Cloudy photoionisation code to store incident, transmitted, and nebular spectra plus line luminosities. The key identity is the reference ionisation parameter scaling, US = (QH/QH,ref)^(1/3) Uref, which sets the ionisation parameter for each grid point in spherical geometry based on the ionising photon production rate relative to a reference SSP at t=1 Myr and Z=0.01. This avoids imposing an artificial geometry evolution when age or metallicity changes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each star particle's unresolved gas can be represented by a single spherical Cloudy HII-region model whose gas-phase metallicity equals the stellar metallicity.

What would settle it

A comparison with resolved HII regions in the local Universe where both the ionising stellar population and the gas-phase abundances are measured: if the observed line ratios deviate systematically from the model grid by more than the grid's sensitivity range, the equal-metallicity or single-geometry assumptions would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Synthetic spectra from cosmological simulations will now include physically motivated nebular lines and continua, enabling direct comparison with JWST, Euclid, and future ELT spectroscopy.
  • The framework can be used to calibrate dust attenuation prescriptions by matching predicted Hα luminosity functions to observed ones.
  • The sensitivity maps show which parameters (e.g., depletion, grain mixture) must be constrained before line-ratio diagnostics can be trusted for metallicity or ionisation parameter inference.
  • The reference ionisation parameter scaling makes predictions robust to SPS model choice for line ratios, while absolute line luminosities remain sensitive to the ionising photon budget.
  • The package's flexibility means the same grids can be used for SED fitting and forward modelling, unifying interpretation and prediction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to replace the single-zone Cloudy model with a distribution of ionisation parameters or escape fractions per star particle, which could be tested against resolved HII region observations.
  • The strong sensitivity of the BPT diagram's high-metallicity locus to dust depletion suggests that metallicity calibrations derived without dust-depletion corrections could be systematically biased, a caution that applies beyond this package.
  • Coupling the grids to a machine-learning emulator, as the authors note is underway, could make full photoionisation models tractable in Bayesian parameter estimation and simulation-based inference.
  • One could test the equal-metallicity assumption by applying the package to galaxies with independently measured stellar and gas-phase metallicities from stacked spectra.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the implementation of photoionised gas emission in the SYNTHESIZER package, using Cloudy to process stellar population grids and produce nebular line and continuum predictions. It describes the default modelling assumptions (reference ionisation parameter, spherical geometry, constant density, gas-phase metallicity tied to the SSP, depletion and grain prescriptions, ionisation-bounded stopping) and systematically explores the sensitivity of UV continuum slopes, emission-line luminosities, and diagnostic ratios to SPS model, IMF, ionisation parameter, density, abundance pattern, depletion, and dust. Example applications include a parametric galaxy, a single TNG50 galaxy, and the full EAGLE simulation, where Hα luminosity functions and equivalent width distributions are compared to observational data. The authors claim that SYNTHESIZER provides a flexible, physically motivated framework for modelling stellar and nebular emission.

Significance. If the central claim is borne out, this is a valuable open-source contribution: the code and pre-computed grids are publicly available with version-stamped releases, and the systematic parameter exploration provides a useful baseline for interpreting synthetic observations. The range of applications—from toy models to cosmological simulations—demonstrates genuine versatility. However, the validation is limited and partially circular: the single observational check of the Hα luminosity function uses a dust attenuation prescription calibrated with the same BPASS v2.2.1 SPS model, and the per-particle single-zone HII-region mapping is not directly tested. The paper is transparent about several acknowledged approximations (Z_gas=Z_SSP, grain scheme self-consistency), which is commendable but does not remove the need for robustness tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.6, §3.1.2, §3.3] The default mapping of every star particle to a single constant-density spherical Cloudy HII region (n_H=10^2.5 cm^-3, R0=0.01 pc, Z_gas=Z_SSP, and the cube-root ionisation-parameter scaling of Eq. 4) is a strong idealisation when applied to cosmological simulation particles. The paper does not test this mapping against the resolved gas distribution in EAGLE or TNG50, nor does it quantify how varying n_H, U_ref, or the stopping column would affect the predicted Hα luminosity function. The EAGLE Hα LF and the equivalent-width distributions are central demonstrations, so a robustness test with plausible alternative mappings or an explicit estimate of the systematic uncertainty is needed to support the claim that the tool 'correctly predicts nebular line and continuum emission.'
  2. [§5.6] The agreement of the default-model Hα LF at z=2.237 with Sobral et al. (2013) is partly circular for the validation of the photoionisation modelling: the FLARES dust attenuation prescription was calibrated using the same BPASS v2.2.1 SPS model to match the z=5 UVLF (Vijayan et al. 2021), as acknowledged in the text. The agreement can therefore be driven largely by the dust calibration and SPS choice rather than by the photoionisation modelling itself. The authors should either compare intrinsic (dust-free) Hα LFs, use an independently calibrated dust prescription, or vary the SPS model with a fixed dust prescription to isolate the photoionisation contribution. The current figure cannot distinguish between these degeneracies.
  3. [§3.3, §3.3.4] The default assumption that the gas-phase metallicity equals the SSP metallicity is explicitly acknowledged as 'may not be fully self-consistent,' and the depletion-to-grain implementation is likewise stated to be 'not fully self-consistent.' These assumptions underlie every grid and every application in the paper. The parameter exploration in Section 4 varies the metallicity of the stellar population and the gas simultaneously, so it does not isolate the effect of decoupling Z_gas from Z_SSP. A quantitative test of this approximation—e.g., a small grid with Z_gas offset from Z_SSP, or a discussion of the expected bias from abundance decoupling—would materially strengthen the claim that the framework is physically motivated and would help users assess the default grids.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says that all scripts to generate the plots 'will be made publicly available on Github on the acceptance of the paper.' For a software-centric paper, releasing plot scripts at submission would aid reproducibility and reviewer verification.
  2. [§3.4] The discussion of the stopping criterion notes that ionisation-bounded models with dust produce attenuation that depends on the ionising photon rate, but the quantitative effect on the EAGLE Hα LF (e.g., comparing to a fixed column-density stop) is not shown. A brief figure or table would clarify the impact of this modelling choice.
  3. [Fig. 29] The visual agreement with Sobral et al. (2013) and Khostovan et al. (2024) would be easier to assess with residuals or a reduced chi-square statistic; for the luminosity function, plotting the observed error bars and model uncertainties would also help.
  4. [Throughout] Minor typographical and formatting issues: 'Hiiregions' appears without proper spacing in several places; the caption of Fig. 23 says 'The same as Figure 21 but showing the resulting nebular continuum spectra' but the axes are identical to Fig. 21—consider clarifying the difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a forward-modeling software description; no target observable is fitted to produce the central predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are demonstrations that a grid of SPS spectra processed through the external photoionisation code Cloudy yields nebular line/continuum predictions and a parameter-dependence map. No observable is used to fit the model parameters: U_ref=0.01, n_H=10^2.5, the Galactic Concordance abundance pattern, Jenkins F*=0.5 depletion, and the ionisation-bounded stopping criterion are all disclosed modelling choices, not fits to data. Equation (4) is a scaling convention for the ionisation parameter, not an inverse derivation from a target observable. The EAGLE H-alpha luminosity function comparison uses the FLARES dust attenuation model from Vijayan et al. (2021), which was calibrated to the external z=5 UVLF (Bouwens et al. 2015); the H-alpha LF at z=2.237 is a different observable and is not the calibration target, so the comparison is not forced by construction. Self-citations to Lovell et al. (2025a), Roper et al. (2026), and Vijayan et al. (2021) provide code and dust-model provenance rather than a load-bearing uniqueness argument. The paper explicitly flags its own limitations (e.g., gas-phase metallicity equal to SSP metallicity 'may not be fully self-consistent'; the stopping criterion affects attenuation), but acknowledged modelling limitations are not circularity. No 'prediction' reduces to an input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its predictions rest on a chain of established codes (Cloudy, SPS models) plus several chosen defaults: U_ref, n_H, F_star, R0, stopping criteria, and a dust attenuation calibration carried from Flares. These are disclosed but shape all quantitative outputs.

free parameters (8)
  • Reference ionisation parameter U_ref = 0.01
    Chosen at t=1 Myr, Z=0.01; scales U for all grid points via Eq. (4); line ratios depend on it.
  • Hydrogen density n_H = 10^2.5 cm^-3
    Default constant gas density for all Cloudy runs; affects collisional metal-line strengths.
  • Jenkins depletion scale F_star = 0.5
    Controls depletion of elements onto dust; changes gas-phase abundances and grain scaling.
  • Ionising photon escape fraction f_esc = 0.3 (toy example; user-specified)
    Fraction of ionising photons escaping the HII region; directly suppresses nebular line luminosities in emission models.
  • Lyman-alpha escape fraction f_Ly-alpha,esc = user-specified
    Additional free parameter in NebularEmission/IntrinsicEmission models.
  • Stopping electron fraction = 0.01
    Cloudy stops when free electron fraction falls below this; sets ionisation-bounded HII region and column depth.
  • Inner radius R0 for spherical geometry = 0.01 pc
    Chosen to ensure R0 << R_S so the geometry behaves as a full sphere.
  • Dust attenuation normalisation (Flares prescription) = calibrated to z=5 UVLF (Bouwens+2015) with BPASS v2.2.1 in Vijayan+2021
    Used for EAGLE/TNG50 dust attenuation; value not re-derived here but load-bearing for the H-alpha LF comparison.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Cloudy C23.01 accurately predicts photoionised gas emission for a given incident SED and gas model.
    All grids are produced by Cloudy; no independent cross-check against Mappings or observations is used to validate the default grids (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Default SPS model (BPASS v2.2.1, Chabrier IMF, 0.1-300 Msun) is a faithful representation of young stellar populations and their ionising photon production.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 4; Figure 2/11 show its ionising output.
  • ad hoc to paper The reference ionisation-parameter scaling US = (QH/QH,ref)^{1/3} U_ref (Eq. 4) is a physically appropriate way to model HII regions around evolving stellar populations.
    This is the paper's default modelling choice; it forces U to track Q_H and suppresses IMF dependence of line ratios.
  • domain assumption Gas-phase metallicity (including depletion) equals the SSP metallicity.
    Section 3.3; authors note this may not be fully self-consistent with SPS elemental abundances.
  • domain assumption Ionisation-bounded stopping criterion (electron fraction < 0.01) is appropriate; escaping photons handled separately via f_esc.
    Section 3.4; adopted from Byler+2017/Wilkins+2020; not included as a grid axis by default.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust grains can be represented by Orion/ISM mixtures plus PAHs, with scales set by carbon and silicon depletion.
    Section 3.3.4; authors acknowledge the implementation is not fully self-consistent because depletion applies to more elements than the grain composition.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 36156 in / 14374 out tokens · 136787 ms · 2026-08-01T07:24:55.054298+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Emission from photoionised gas surrounding young stellar populations ($H\text{II}$ regions) provides critical diagnostics of the physical conditions in star forming galaxies. This emission constrains the gas properties, the nature of ionising sources, and generates essential features for determining galaxy redshifts. To leverage spectroscopic observations to test galaxy formation models, it is essential to incorporate these emissions into synthetic datasets. Here, we present the integration of photoionised gas emission into the SYNTHESIZER package (https://synthesizer-project.github.io) and demonstrate its application. We quantify the impact of key modelling assumptions - including stellar population synthesis models, initial mass functions, ionisation parameter, gas density, geometry, abundance pattern, elemental depletion, and dust - on spectral diagnostics. Furthermore, we demonstrate the versatility of SYNTHESIZER through its application in different scenarios ranging from exploring emission in toy parametric models to large-volume cosmological simulations with realistic star formation and metal enrichment histories. Taken together, SYNTHESIZER provides a flexible, physically motivated framework to model stellar and nebular emissions, serving as a vital link between theory and observations in the era of next-generation spectroscopic missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27467 by Aswin P. Vijayan, Christopher C. Lovell, Jack C. Turner, Sabrina Berger, Sophie L. Newman, Stephen M. Wilkins, Thomas Harvey, William J. Roper.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — The Lyman-continuum spectra predicted by version 2.2.1 of BPASS assuming a Chabrier (2003) IMF with a high￾mass cut-off of 300 M⊙ for two ages (log10(t/yr) ∈ {6, 7}, dark and light lines, respectively) and three metallicities (log10(Z) ∈ {−2, −3, −4}). The energy required to produce various ions is shown by the solid vertical lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — The ionisation parameter, U, relative to the default reference value Uref, as a function of age and metallicity for our default SPS model and IMF. a more physically meaningful measure of the radiation field relative to the gas in a fully spherical configuration. Since Cloudy does not allow US to be set directly, we instead specify the corresponding ionising photon production rate, QH, using Equation 2 to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — The specific hydrogen ionising photon production rate, QH/M, (top-panel), and the ratio between fully-ionized helium and hydrogen ionising photon production rates, QHe/QH, (i.e. hard￾ness, bottom-panel) as a function of age for different metallicities. dius, RS: RS = 3 s 3QH 4πn2 HϵαB , (1) where QH is the hydrogen ionising photon production rate, nH is the hydrogen number density, ϵ is the volume fillin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — The abundance scaling of Carbon and Nitrogen relative to Oxygen for the Dopita et al. (2006) and Galactic Concordance (default) models in synthesizer. The vertical grey line marks the solar metallicity (Z = 0.0134 or 12 + log10(O/H) = 8.69). it is well established that not all elements vary in this simple way — for instance, secondary production pro￾cesses play a key role for elements such as carbon and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: compares these patterns, showing the updated Jenkins (2009) model evaluated at F⋆ ∈ {0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0}. Clear differences emerge between the prescriptions: for example, both CloudyClassic and Gutkin et al. (2016) prescriptions predict that more than 40% of carbon is depleted, whereas the Jenkins (2009) model yields a lower de￾pletion of ∼ 20–40%, depending on the adopted F⋆. By default, we adopt t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — The abundances of carbon (top-panel) and silicon (bottom-panel) in dust as a function of metallicity for the different depletion patterns explored in this work. The right-hand side axis shows the scale parameter passed to Cloudy to scale the graphite and silicate grains. Here we assume 100% of carbon dust is in graphite type grains. grain type and allow for multiple customisations. In synthesizer, we def… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Top-panel - The ionisation fraction (χ) as a function of column density (and depth) for the H+, O+, and O++ ions. Middle-panel - The luminosity of Hβ as a function of the column density for different grain assumptions. The solid vertical line in the panels denote the depth where the free electron fraction drops below 0.01. Bottom-panel - The ratio of Hα, [Oiii]λλ4959, 5007, and [Oii]λλ3726, 3729 luminosi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — UV continuum slope β, line luminosities, and key line ratios as a function of metallicity for our default modelling choices. counting for transmission through the gas, but more im￾portantly adding nebular emission, causes the UV spec￾trum to significantly redden since the nebular emission is relatively flat compared to the steeply falling, bluer stellar emission. This effect is larger (∆β ≈ 0.8) at lower… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The impact of age on the UV continuum slope (first￾panel), various line luminosities (second-panel, relative to our de￾fault model), diagnostic line ratios (third-panel), and the BPT-Nii diagram (bottom-panel, scatter points show different metallicities). The grey solid and dashed line are the AGN demarcation lines from Kewley et al. (2001) and Kauffmann et al. (2003), respectively. slowly. This behavio… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — The impact of the choice of stellar population synthe￾sis model (SPS, top) and initial mass function (IMF, bottom) on the specific ionising photon production rate. To maintain clarity we only show the impact at two metallicities: Z ∈ {0.001, 0.01}. However, note that the Yggdrasil model is shown for a zero metal￾licity stellar population. ally higher, reflecting the higher ionising photon rate at 106 yr… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: — The distribution of the specific ionising photon pro￾duction rate for hydrogen (top panel) and helium (doubly-ionised, bottom panel) for the age and metallicity range covered by version 2.2.1 of BPASS assuming a Chabrier (2003) with a high-mass cut￾off of 300 M⊙. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: — Pure stellar (incident) spectra in the UV to near-IR predicted by version 2.2.1 of BPASS assuming a Chabrier (2003) with a high-mass cut-off of 300 M⊙. The left panel shows the evolution as a function of age for Z = 0.01. The right-hand panel instead shows the variation with metallicity for three ages, log10(t/yr) ∈ {6., 7., 8.}. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 … view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: — The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: — The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: — Spectral energy distributions and emission line equivalent widths for a galaxy formed with 50 Myr of constant star formation at Z = 0.01. We mark emission lines with equivalent widths greater that 10 ˚A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: — Equivalent width of various nebular lines as a function of metallicity generated for a parametric galaxy with a constant star formation history of 50 Myr for different metallicities. default model and FSPS show similar evolution, while BC03 and Maraston exhibit a sharper decline that di￾verges beyond 10 Myr. IMFs with steeper high-mass slopes decline much more rapidly. 5.4. Impact on broadband photometr… view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: — Hα equivalent width (solid lines) and Hα/FUV lumi￾nosity ratio (dashed lines) as functions of star formation duration (asuming metallicity of 0.01) for different SPS models (top panel, default model and BC03, FSPS, and Maraston) and IMF slopes (bottom panel, default model and α2 ∈ {2.0, 2.35, 2.7}). redshifts (e.g., Arrabal Haro et al. 2023). 5.5. Individual simulated galaxy For our next example, we app… view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: — Predicted JWST NIRCam F277W−F356W colours as a function of redshift for galaxies with three different durations of constant star formation: 10, 50, and 200 Myr. cally motivated assembly histories. In the top-left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: — Clockwise from the top-left: the star formation and metal enrichment history of the galaxy; the spectral energy distributions showing the pure stellar (incident), nebular continuum, and total emission; a map of the Balmer decrement; a map of the Hα luminosity; and the BPT-[Nii] diagram. In the latter, we show both the distribution of individual star particles, weighted by their observed Hα luminosity, a… view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: — Top panel: Eagle Hα luminosity function for our default SPS model for z ∈ [0, 10] (left panel), for different SPS models (middle panel) and IMFs at z = 2.237 (right panel). We compare the Hα LF at z = 2.237 to observational constraints from Sobral et al. (2013) at z = 2.23. Bottom panel: Eagle Hα equivalent width distribution for different SPS model (left panel) and IMFs (right panel) at z = 2.237. We a… view at source ↗

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

91 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., van Hoof P

    Abel N. P., van Hoof P. A. M., Shaw G., Ferland G. J., Elwert T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1125A 686, 1125

    doi:10.1086/591505 2008

  2. [2]

    G., Groves B

    Allen M. G., Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Kewley L. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...20A 178, 20

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  3. [3]

    Alvensleben U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401.1063A 401, 1063

    Anders P., Fritze-v. Alvensleben U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...401.1063A 401, 1063

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030151 2003

  4. [4]

    Arjona-G \'a lvez E., Di Cintio A., Grand R. J. J., Sales L. V., Canalizo G., Matamoro Zatarain T., Vijayan A. P., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2606.30726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260630726A p. arXiv:2606.30726

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30726 2026

  5. [5]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.622..707A 622, 707

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  9. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  10. [10]

    Barrow K. S. S., Wise J. H., Norman M. L., O'Shea B. W., Xu H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4863B 469, 4863

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1181 2017

  11. [11]

    M., Lacey C

    Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G., Gonzalez-Perez V., Manzoni G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.1880B 510, 1880

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3506 2022

  12. [12]

    Begley R., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f1995B 545, staf1995

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1995 2026

  13. [13]

    K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    Boquien M., Burgarella D., Roehlly Y., Buat V., Ciesla L., Corre D., Inoue A. K., Salas H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.103B 622, A103

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  14. [14]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...34B 803, 34

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34 2015

  15. [15]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    G., Charlot S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..538B 405, 538

    Bruzual A. G., Charlot S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..538B 405, 538

    doi:10.1086/172385 1993

  17. [17]

    J., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Byler N., Dalcanton J. J., Conroy C., Johnson B. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...44B 840, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  18. [18]

    M., Eldridge J

    Byrne C. M., Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.2433B 537, 2433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf178 2025

  19. [19]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  20. [20]

    S., Glover S

    Ceverino D., Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1366C 484, 1366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz079 2019

  21. [21]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , 115, 763

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  22. [22]

    Chaikin E., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag300C 548, stag300

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag300 2026

  23. [23]

    M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  24. [25]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RMxAA..59..327C 59, 327

    doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 2023

  25. [27]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  26. [28]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , 450, 1937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  27. [29]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..167..177D 167, 177

    Dopita M. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..167..177D 167, 177

    doi:10.1086/508261 2006

  28. [30]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  29. [31]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15514.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.1019E 400, 1019

    arXiv 2009

  30. [32]

    Feltre A., Charlot S., Gutkin J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3354F 456, 3354

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2794 2016

  31. [33]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., Ferguson J. W., Kingdon J. B., Verner E. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..761F 110, 761

    doi:10.1086/316190 1998

  32. [34]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  33. [35]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  34. [36]

    Garg P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...80G 926, 80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b8 2022

  35. [37]

    A., Dopita M

    Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..153....9G 153, 9

    doi:10.1086/421113 2004

  36. [38]

    M., Ji X., Chatzikos M., Yan R., Ferland G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2310G 512, 2310

    Gunasekera C. M., Ji X., Chatzikos M., Yan R., Ferland G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2310G 512, 2310

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac022 2022

  37. [39]

    M., van Hoof P

    Gunasekera C. M., van Hoof P. A. M., Chatzikos M., Ferland G. J., 2023, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RNAAS...7..246G 7, 246

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 2023

  38. [40]

    Gutkin J., Charlot S., Bruzual G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1757G 462, 1757

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1716 2016

  39. [41]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

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

  40. [42]

    Harvey T., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.547ag282H 547, stag282

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag282 2026

  41. [43]

    P., Somerville R

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Somerville R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2468H 472, 2468

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2180 2017

  42. [44]

    S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..333H 487, 333

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Somerville R. S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..333H 487, 333

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1256 2019

  43. [45]

    Hirschmann M., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 , 526, 3610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955 2023

  44. [46]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  45. [47]

    R., Oka T., McCall B

    Indriolo N., Geballe T. R., Oka T., McCall B. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1736I 671, 1736

    doi:10.1086/523036 2007

  46. [48]

    B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1299J 700, 1299

    Jenkins E. B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1299J 700, 1299

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1299 2009

  47. [49]

    J., Sutherland R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...37J 927, 37

    Jin Y., Kewley L. J., Sutherland R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...37J 927, 37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 2022

  48. [50]

    D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  49. [51]

    Katz H., et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2309.03269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..44K 6, 44

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [52]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    arXiv 2003

  51. [53]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  52. [54]

    J., Nicholls D

    Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..511K 57, 511

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  53. [55]

    A., Malhotra S., Rhoads J

    Khostovan A. A., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., Sobral D., Harish S., Tilvi V., Coughlin A., Rezaee S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2903K 535, 2903

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2395 2024

  54. [56]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    arXiv 2001

  55. [57]

    Llerena M., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...708A.152L 708, A152

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557897 2026

  56. [58]

    C., Vijayan A

    Lovell C. C., Vijayan A. P., Thomas P. A., Wilkins S. M., Barnes D. J., Irodotou D., Roper W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2127L 500, 2127

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3360 2021

  57. [59]

    C., Roper W

    Lovell C. C., Roper W. J., Vijayan A. P., Wilkins S. M., Newman S., Seeyave L., 2025a, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.145766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E.152L 8, 152

    doi:10.33232/001c.145766

  58. [60]

    C., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.3949L 544, 3949

    Lovell C. C., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.3949L 544, 3949

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1888

  59. [61]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  60. [62]

    Maraston C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01947.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.300..872M 300, 872

    arXiv 1998

  61. [63]

    Maraston C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..799M 362, 799

    arXiv 2005

  62. [64]

    Maraston C., Str \"o mb \"a ck G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19738.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2785M 418, 2785

    arXiv 2011

  63. [65]

    Maraston C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.2962M 496, 2962

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1489 2020

  64. [66]

    S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K

    Mathis J. S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K. H., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..425M 217, 425

    doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  65. [67]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3234N 490, 3234

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306 2019

  66. [68]

    L., Lovell C

    Newman S. L., Lovell C. C., Maraston C., Roper W. J., Vijayan A. P., Wilkins S. M., Giavalisco M., Saxena A., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f1866N 545, staf1866

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1866 2026

  67. [69]

    C., Sutherland R

    Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., Dopita M. A., Kewley L. J., Groves B. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4403N 466, 4403

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3235 2017

  68. [70]

    Orsi \'A ., Padilla N., Groves B., Cora S., Tecce T., Gargiulo I., Ruiz A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..799O 443, 799

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1203 2014

  69. [71]

    Pathak A., Wyithe J. S. B., Sutherland R. S., Kewley L. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539..621P 539, 621

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf545 2025

  70. [72]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3196P 490, 3196

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  71. [73]

    Plat A., Charlot S., Bruzual G., Feltre A., Vidal-Garc \' a A., Morisset C., Chevallard J., Todt H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..978P 490, 978

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2616 2019

  72. [74]

    Roper W., et al., 2026, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.09436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026JOSS...11.9436R 11, 9436

    doi:10.21105/joss.09436 2026

  73. [75]

    arXiv:2605.06769

    Scharr \'e L., et al., 2026, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260506769S p. arXiv:2605.06769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [76]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , 446, 521

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  75. [77]

    Schaye J., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag375S 548, stag375

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag375 2026

  76. [78]

    Shen X., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4747S 495, 4747

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1423 2020

  77. [79]

    N., Geach J

    Sobral D., Smail I., Best P. N., Geach J. E., Matsuda Y., Stott J. P., Cirasuolo M., Kurk J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1128S 428, 1128

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts096 2013

  78. [80]

    R., Eldridge J

    Stanway E. R., Eldridge J. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...75S 479, 75

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1353 2018

  79. [81]

    S., Dopita M

    Sutherland R. S., Dopita M. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...88..253S 88, 253

    doi:10.1086/191823 1993

  80. [82]

    P., Lovell C

    Vijayan A. P., Lovell C. C., Wilkins S. M., Thomas P. A., Barnes D. J., Irodotou D., Kuusisto J., Roper W. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3289V 501, 3289

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3715 2021

Showing first 80 references.