Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Recovering the properties of the interstellar medium through integrated spectroscopy: application to the z~0 ECO volume-limited star-forming galaxy sample

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the integrated spectrum of a galaxy can be inverted to recover internal distributions of metallicity, ionization parameter, and gas density.

desk verdict A transparent and useful LOC application whose sharpest claim — recovering internal parameter distributions — is not yet demonstrated; the average values and MZR are the robust parts. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15860 v2 pith:CSH4EDD4 submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.GA

V. Lebouteiller , C. T. Richardson , M. S. Polimera , D. S. Carr , Z. L. Hutchens , S. J. Kannappan , L. Ramambason , A. J. Moffett
show 2 more authors
M. Varese S. C. Madden
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords integratedspectroscopyphotoionizationmodelsLOCmass-metallicityrelationdwarfgalaxiesBayesianinferenceionizedgasECOsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that integrated galaxy spectra—single unresolved spectra like those coming from large surveys—contain enough information to recover the internal distribution of physical conditions in the ionized gas, not just a single average. The authors model 2052 star-forming galaxies from the volume-limited ECO catalog as sums of 1D photoionization models whose parameters (metallicity, ionization parameter, density, stellar age) follow power-law distributions with free boundaries. They find that these distributed models fit the observed strong lines better than single-component models, that most galaxies are dominated by low-excitation gas near 0.3 solar metallicity, and that the resulting mass–metallicity relation agrees with direct electron-temperature methods. If true, this means unresolved surveys can still probe how gas conditions vary inside galaxies, which matters for interpreting high-redshift and all-sky spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LOC (locally optimally emitted clouds) model: a galaxy's integrated line emission is written as the sum over many 1D photoionization clouds, each weighted by a power-law distribution in the physical parameters, with the boundary positions of that distribution as free hyperparameters. The machinery is the MULTIGRIS Bayesian framework, which evaluates such combinations on the fly with sequential Monte Carlo sampling and returns posterior distributions for the average values, the power-law slopes, and the lower and upper boundaries. The LOC equation is $L_{\rm tot} = \sum_p \Phi(p)\,I(p)\,\Delta(p)$, with weights of the form $\Phi(p) = 10^{\alpha p}$ inside $[p_{\rm min}, p_{\rm max}]$. This construction is what lets the paper claim it recovers distributions rather than single representative values.

What would settle it

Take a subsample of ECO star-forming galaxies observed with integral-field spectroscopy, sum the spaxels to form the integrated spectrum, run the LOC inference, and compare the recovered power-law parameters to the actual luminosity-weighted distributions in the resolved maps; if the inferred internal metallicity dispersions (up to roughly 1 dex around solar metallicity) are not present in the resolved maps, the recovery is an artifact of the grid or topology. Similarly, direct electron-temperature metallicity measurements across the sample would settle whether the inferred metallicity scale matches reality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the optical strong lines of a star-forming galaxy are produced by a luminosity-weighted mixture of many ionized clouds with a spread of conditions, and that this spread can be recovered. The reference model treats metallicity, ionization parameter, density, and stellar age as power-law-distributed parameters with free lower and upper bounds; the inference returns probability density functions for these parameters. The average metallicity of the ECO star-forming sample peaks around 0.3 solar, the integrated emission is dominated by low-excitation gas with log U near -3.2, and the average mass–metallicity relation follows direct abundance determinations from the low-metallicity calibrated regime to high-metallicity stacks. The paper also finds that the LOC models outperform single 1D models by every metric, interprets this as evidence that physical conditions within galaxies are nonuniform, and identifies the [SII] lines as a source of systematic bias.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 1D Cloudy grid built with BPASS stellar SEDs, Nicholls et al. (2017) abundances, a fixed depletion strength, and a metallicity-dependent dust-to-gas ratio maps the observed line ratios onto the true metallicities and densities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The mass–metallicity relation inferred without [SII] constraints matches direct electron-temperature determinations from low-mass calibrations to high-mass stacks, suggesting strong-line photoionization modeling can yield reliable metallicities across the full mass range.
  • Because LOC models outperform single 1D models in all metrics, single-'representative' cloud analyses of integrated spectra likely miss real internal spreads of ionization and metallicity.
  • Most ECO star-forming galaxies are dominated by low-excitation gas near 0.3 solar metallicity, with a tight average ionization parameter around log U near -3.2 and ages peaking near 5 Myr.
  • The inferred internal metallicity dispersion grows from factors of 2–3 in the most metal-poor galaxies to factors of 5–10 around solar metallicity, implying metal-rich regions enrich faster than metal-poor regions.
  • The [SII] line doublet, when included, overpredicts [SII] and worsens [NII] and [OI] fits, so current grids and/or SDSS measurements carry a systematic that should be addressed before using [SII] as a constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If integrated spectra really encode internal distributions, the same LOC machinery could be applied to high-redshift galaxies and large-area surveys that only have one spectrum per object, effectively recovering a 'poor-man's IFU' from unresolved data.
  • The near-zero power-law slopes for age, density, and metallicity might reflect the fact that line fluxes weight clouds by brightness, so the recovered distributions are luminosity-weighted, not volume-weighted; physical interpretations of the slopes should be treated as such.
  • A direct test would be to run the same inference on IFU data cubes of ECO-like dwarfs, summing the spaxels into a fake integrated spectrum and comparing the recovered power-law parameters with the actual resolved distribution.
  • If the [SII] problem is a grid abundance or depletion issue rather than a data issue, similar biases may affect sulfur-based diagnostics such as N2S2 in other strong-line studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the MULTIGRIS Bayesian inference framework, using combinations of 1D Cloudy photoionization models (LOC distributions with power-law parameter distributions and free boundaries), to fit optical strong-line fluxes in 2052 star-forming galaxies from the volume-limited ECO catalog. It compares single-component 1D models (1C1S) with multicomponent and LOC architectures using posterior predictive p-values, marginal likelihoods, and a fraction-within-3σ metric, and finds that LOC models with free boundaries outperform single 1D models. The authors then infer per-galaxy averages and internal distributions of metallicity, ionization parameter, density, and stellar age; report a weakly bimodal average-metallicity distribution; discuss the internal metallicity dispersion in terms of an evolutionary enrichment sequence; and construct a mass-metallicity relation that they compare with direct-method and strong-line calibrations. A substantial part of the analysis is concerned with the influence of the line set, particularly the decision to exclude the [S II] lines.

Significance. If the inference is reliable, the paper would demonstrate that integrated optical spectra contain enough information to recover not only average ISM conditions but also luminosity-weighted internal distributions of Z, U, and n in galaxies, with important implications for high-redshift unresolved samples. The strength of the paper lies in its explicit model-selection framework (PPP, marginal likelihood, and the decision tree of Sect. 2.3), the public MULTIGRIS code, the use of a volume-limited sample spanning the dwarf regime, and the anchoring of the grid metallicity against the empirical line-ratio diagnostics of Garg et al. (2024). The agreement of the no-[S II] MZR with direct-method determinations over a wide mass range is a valuable external check. However, the central recovery claim and several headline results depend on untested or model-dependent steps, which must be made explicit and quantitatively supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 4.4 / 5.2.1] The central claim that integrated spectra recover internal distributions of Z, U, and n is not yet demonstrated. Section 4.4 states that the inferred power-law slopes are "similar on first order for all galaxies" and that "the observed tracers mostly constrain the average physical parameter value." If only the averages are constrained, the free boundaries pmin,max—and therefore the metallicity dispersion ΔZ = Zmax−Zmin used in §5.2.1 to infer an evolutionary enrichment sequence—may be largely prior-dominated. The benchmark in §2.1 compares on-the-fly inference with precomputed LOC grids, but it does not test whether an unknown input multi-component distribution can be recovered. I request an injection-recovery test: generate synthetic galaxy spectra from known LOC or multi-component distributions, fit them with the same pipeline, and report bias and uncertainty on pmin,max, the power-law slopes, and ΔZ. Without such a test, the abstract's claim that the inference "predicts non-uniform physical conditions within galaxies" remains an architectural assumption rather than an empirical result.
  2. [Sect. 4.1 / 5.4] The headline numerical results—the ≈0.3 Z⊙ peak and the MZR—are presented mainly for runs that exclude the [S II] lines, while the runs that include [S II] produce a stronger metallicity bimodality and a significantly different high-mass MZR (Figs. 9, 13). Excluding a diagnostic because it is underfit is a post-hoc model choice; the PPP improvement and the [O II] replacement test in §4.1 support the decision, but they do not quantify how much of the interpretation rests on this choice. I ask for a quantitative statement, perhaps in tabular form, of how the inferred average-metallicity PDF, the MZR fit coefficients in Eq. (10), and the bimodality indicators change across the line-set configurations (with [S II], without [S II], with [O II]), together with the corresponding model-selection metrics. This will let the reader assess the robustness of the central results rather than relying on qualitative statements.
  3. [Sect. 5.3] The metallicity bimodality is explicitly attributed to the grid and its abundance patterns: "We conclude that the Z bimodality is mostly driven by the grid presently used and the underlying abundance patterns." The alternative grids are discussed only qualitatively ("BOND ... does not show any bimodality"), and the authors themselves conclude that the bimodality, "if real, is likely not a strong one." Since the bimodality appears in the abstract and conclusions as a substantive result, the paper should either downgrade it to a model-dependent suggestion in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a quantitative comparison with BOND and SFGX (e.g., the fraction of models in the secondary peak, or a mixture-model fit to the PDF). As written, the level of support is disproportionate to the prominence of the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sect. 3.1] Typo: "withough" should be "without" in the parenthetical about machine-learning UV magnitude predictions.
  2. [Sect. 3.2] Typo: "statitistical distributions" should be "statistical distributions."
  3. [Sect. 5.1] Typo: "interperation" should be "interpretation."
  4. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is ambiguous because the text says the average is calculated in log scale but the formula writes p in the numerator and denominator. Please define p as log10 of the physical value (or write the equation for log10 pavg explicitly), and define the corresponding weighted average for the boundaries.
  5. [Sect. 2.3] The "fraction of posterior draws matching the observed values within 3σ" is used in Fig. 7 and elsewhere but is not formally defined; please give its definition and specify how it is computed from the posterior samples.
  6. [Sect. 5.1 / Fig. 10] The U–Z interpretation would benefit from stating explicitly whether the comparison curves from Kashino & Inoue (2019) and Ji & Yan (2022) are plotted in the same quantity (log U) and against the same metallicity scale as the inferred Zavg; otherwise the visual agreement could be misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inference chain is a self-contained Bayesian fit with external anchors; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a Bayesian model-comparison and posterior-inference exercise. The LOC power-law distribution is adopted as an explicit model architecture, and the paper is transparent that the fit quality is driven jointly by topology assumptions and the 1D grid: 'the match between the LOC models and observations is driven simultaneously by the topology assumptions... and by the inherent 1D model database.' The claim of nonuniform physical conditions is supported by an absolute metric (PPP) comparing LOC models against single-component 1C1S models, rather than by defining the result into the model. The metallicity scale is anchored to external empirical diagnostics (Garg et al. 2024), and the inferred mass-metallicity relation is compared with independent direct-method determinations (Indahl et al. 2021; Andrews & Martini 2013), so the central quantitative claims have independent content. The authors' own statement that 'the observed tracers mostly constrain the average physical parameter value' indicates a real identifiability limitation for internal distribution shapes, but this is a statistical-validity concern, not a circular reduction: the posterior boundaries are not defined as the data, and the paper does not present them as an independent measurement. Self-citations (MULTIGRIS; LOC methodology) are references to the authors' own code and previous applications, but no load-bearing result is imported solely from a self-citation, and the code is documented and reproducible. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited; the score reflects only the presence of minor methodological self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference has 12 fitted hyperparameters per galaxy (four power-law slopes and eight integration boundaries). The mapping from line ratios to physical parameters is supplied by the 1D Cloudy grid, which is a load-bearing external input: its adequacy is an axiom, not a free parameter. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or physical entities; its 'topological models' and LOC distributions are existing concepts applied in a new configuration.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha_age (power-law slope for stellar age) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free hyperparameter governing the distribution of post-starburst ages in the LOC model (Sect. 3.3.1, Table 1).
  • age_min, age_max (boundaries for age) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free integration boundaries for the age distribution; cited as free parameter boundaries (Abstract, Sect. 3.3.1).
  • alpha_U (power-law slope for ionization parameter) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free hyperparameter governing the U distribution (Sect. 3.3.1, Fig. 9).
  • U_min, U_max (boundaries for ionization parameter) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free integration boundaries for U; the upper boundary Umax is noted as uncertain (Sect. B.2).
  • alpha_n (power-law slope for density) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free hyperparameter governing the hydrogen density distribution (Sect. 3.3.1).
  • n_min, n_max (boundaries for density) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free integration boundaries for density (Sect. 3.3.1, Table 1).
  • alpha_Z (power-law slope for metallicity) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free hyperparameter governing the metallicity distribution (Sect. 3.3.1).
  • Z_min, Z_max (boundaries for metallicity) = per-galaxy inferred, not tabulated
    Free integration boundaries for metallicity; Zmax drives the claimed bimodality (Sect. 4.4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LOC linear combination of independent 1D clouds (Eq. 1)
    The total line flux is a weighted sum of independent 1D photoionization models; radiation escaping one cloud does not affect others (Sect. 2.1). This is load-bearing for interpreting the recovered distributions as physical internal structure.
  • domain assumption Adequacy of the Cloudy photoionization grid with BPASS SEDs, Nicholls et al. (2017) abundances, and fixed depletion F*=0.45
    The mapping from strong-line ratios to Z, U, n, and age comes from this grid. The authors admit strong dependence on the reference grid and that other prescriptions could lead to different conclusions (Sect. 3.3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law distributions with free boundaries as the model architecture
    The reference model assumes power-law distributions for all physical parameters with free boundaries (Sect. 3.3.1). The authors justify this by arguing normal distributions can be approximated by power laws, but this is a modeling choice rather than an observationally established distribution.
  • domain assumption Reliability of MPA-JHU line measurements and Balmer-decrement extinction corrections
    The line fluxes and extinction corrections come from the SDSS MPA-JHU catalog as processed by Polimera et al. (2022). Any systematic errors propagate into the inferred parameters.
  • standard math Bayesian inference and Sequential Monte Carlo sampling are valid
    The framework uses standard Bayesian posterior inference with SMC particles (Sect. 2.2). This is standard mathematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recovering the properties of the interstellar medium through integrated spectroscopy: application to the z~0 ECO volume-limited star-forming galaxy sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSH4EDD4

@misc{pith2026241215860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recovering the properties of the interstellar medium through integrated spectroscopy: application to the z~0 ECO volume-limited star-forming galaxy sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSH4EDD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15860}
}
read the original abstract

Deriving physical parameters from integrated galaxy spectra is paramount to interpret the cosmic evolution of star formation, chemical enrichment, and energetic sources. We develop modeling techniques to characterize the ionized gas properties in the subset of 2052 star-forming galaxies from the volume-limited, dwarf-dominated, z~0 ECO catalog. The MULTIGRIS statistical framework is used to evaluate the performance of various models using strong lines as constraints. The reference model involves physical parameters distributed as power-laws with free parameter boundaries. Specifically, we use combinations of 1D photoionization models (i.e., considering the propagation of radiation toward a single cloud) to match optical HII region lines, in order to provide probability density functions of the inferred parameters. The inference predicts non-uniform physical conditions within galaxies. The integrated spectra of most galaxies are dominated by relatively low-excitation gas with a metallicity around 0.3 solar. Using the average metallicity in galaxies, we provide a new fit to the mass-metallicity relationship which is in line with direct abundance method determinations from the calibrated range at low metallicity to stacks at high metallicity. The average metallicity shows a weakly bimodal distribution which may be due related to external (e.g., refueling of non-cluster early-type galaxies above ~10^9.5 solar masses) or internal processes (more efficient star-formation in metal-rich regions). The specific line set used for inference affects the results and we identify potential issues with the use of the [SII] line doublet. Complex modelling approaches are limited by the inherent 1D model database as well as caveats regarding the gas geometry. Our results highlight, however, the possibility to extract useful and significant information from integrated spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15860 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of topologies using multicomponent models (1C1S and 1C2S) and integrated distributions (LOC). 1C1S assumes a stellar pop￾ulation described with a single age associated with an ISM component with uniform conditions. 1C2S uses the same stellar population hypothesis as 1C1S but enables two distinct sets of uniform ISM conditions. LOC models gradually consider parameters as power-law distributions. faster w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decision tree for model architectures. The successive metrics are indicated in the middle. Green arrows and boxes indicate the path of maximum likelihood for model consideration. lar clusters each surrounded with identical ISM conditions (i.e., well adapted to the case of young SF regions and old stellar pop￾ulations), or 3) any combination of the above. A critical caveat is that the linear combination assumes that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Excitation diagrams for the inference run with (top) and without (bottom) [S ii] lines. The color points show the modeled values (see Sect. 3.3.2), with the color scaling with the metallicity. The solid gray curves show the extreme starburst delimiting line from Kewley et al. (2001), while the dashed gray curve is from Kauffmann et al. (2003), and the dashed blue curve is from Stasinska et al. (2006). The thin black… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Empirical line ratio diagnostics as a function of metallicity for the model grid (the single 1D model is in blue and the LOC distribution is in green), compared to the calibration from Garg et al. (2024) in purple. The shaded areas correspond to the range of physical c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows that the predicted line fluxes agree within ≈ 2σ for all galaxies in the sample with the LOC architecture using all available lines. Looking at the specific posterior predictive p-value (PPP) for each line for the 1C1S and LOC architec￾tures using all available l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior predictive p-value (PPP) for each line. ered more likely a priori (independently on observed tracers, i.e., with a larger p(M) value) than multicomponent “xCyS” models. 4.3. Physical meaningfulness of LOC average and single 1D model values While we show in Se…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance metrics for the entire sample. From top to bottom: the marginal likelihood and the likelihood (evidence), the absolute posterior predictive p value (PPP), and the fraction of posterior draws matching the observations within 3σ. In summary, biases may exist …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of single 1D models (1C1S) versus LOC averages. The color scales with the metallicity parameter. From top to bottom we show the results for the runs ignoring [O ii], ignoring [S ii] and [O ii], and ignoring [S ii] (Sect. 4.1). The dotted lines in the leftmos…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hyperparameter and average values. Article number, page 13 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlations between physical parameters for the runs including (top) or excluding (bottom) the [S ii] lines. The color scale indicates the sSFR. For U versus Z, the low- and high-Z curves are from Kashino & Inoue (2019) and Ji & Yan (2022) respectively. Since the slo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the parameter boundaries pmin,max versus the average metallicity Zavg for the three inference runs (including [S ii] on top, ignoring [S ii] in the middle, and replacing [S ii] by [O ii] in the bottom). For each run, the upper row shows pmin,max in blue a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows that the MZR is smooth and narrow until stellar masses 109 M⊙, but there is a large spread of metallici￾ties in the range 109.5−10 M⊙, which eventually leads to a high￾metallicity plateau for the most massive galaxies. The Z and M∗ PDFs are remarkably different,…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Metallicity-mass relationship using the metallicity inferred with MULTIGRIS including [S ii] lines (left) and using the metallicity calcu￾lated from N2S2 empirical calibration (right). 2015). This led Kannappan et al. (2013) to hypothesize that the transition is due t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., van Hoof , P

    Abel , N. P., van Hoof , P. A. M., Shaw , G., Ferland , G. J., & Elwert , T. 2008, , 686, 1125

    2008

  2. [2]

    Andrews , B. H. & Martini , P. 2013, , 765, 140

    2013

  3. [3]

    I., Dejonghe , H., et al

    Baes , M., Davies , J. I., Dejonghe , H., et al. 2003, , 343, 1081

    2003

  4. [4]

    2011, , 196, 22

    Baes , M., Verstappen , J., De Looze , I., et al. 2011, , 196, 22

    2011

  5. [5]

    A., Ferland , G

    Baldwin , J. A., Ferland , G. J., Martin , P. G., et al. 1991, , 374, 580

    1991

  6. [6]

    S., Rood , R

    Balser , D. S., Rood , R. T., Bania , T. M., & Anderson , L. D. 2011, , 738, 27

    2011

  7. [7]

    A., Skillman , E

    Berg , D. A., Skillman , E. D., Marble , A. R., et al. 2012, , 754, 98

    2012

  8. [8]

    A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F

    Blanc , G. A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F. P. A., & Dopita , M. A. 2015, , 798, 99

    2015

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 622, A103

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103

    2019

  2. [10]

    2019, , 488, 3826

    Bresolin , F. 2019, , 488, 3826

    2019

  3. [11]

    2005, , 360, 1413

    Burgarella , D., Buat , V., & Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J. 2005, , 360, 1413

    2005

  4. [12]

    S., Kannappan , S

    Carr , D. S., Kannappan , S. J., Norris , M. A., et al. 2024, , 968, 18

    2024

  5. [13]

    2015, , 451, 210

    Carton , D., Brinchmann , J., Wang , J., et al. 2015, , 451, 210

    2015

  6. [14]

    & Charlot , S

    Chevallard , J. & Charlot , S. 2016, , 462, 1415

    2016

  7. [15]

    P., Hony , S., et al

    Cormier , D., Abel , N. P., Hony , S., et al. 2019, , 626, A23

    2019

  8. [16]

    C., Lebouteiller , V., et al

    Cormier , D., Madden , S. C., Lebouteiller , V., et al. 2015, , 578, A53

    2015

  9. [17]

    J., Kewley , L

    D'Agostino , J. J., Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., et al. 2019, , 878, 2

    2019

  10. [18]

    2014, , 568, A62

    De Looze , I., Cormier , D., Lebouteiller , V., et al. 2014, , 568, A62

    2014

  11. [19]

    2019, , 623, A5

    De Vis , P., Jones , A., Viaene , S., et al. 2019, , 623, A5

    2019

  12. [20]

    & Birnboim , Y

    Dekel , A. & Birnboim , Y. 2008, , 383, 119

    2008

  13. [21]

    2012, Stat Comput, 22, 1009

    Del Moral , P., Doucet , A., & Jasra , A. 2012, Stat Comput, 22, 1009

    2012

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Della Bruna , L., Adamo , A., Lee , J. C., et al. 2021, , 650, A103

    2021

  15. [23]

    A., Fischera , J., Sutherland , R

    Dopita , M. A., Fischera , J., Sutherland , R. S., et al. 2006 a , , 167, 177

    2006

  16. [24]

    A., Fischera , J., Sutherland , R

    Dopita , M. A., Fischera , J., Sutherland , R. S., et al. 2006 b , , 647, 244

    2006

  17. [25]

    A., Kewley , L

    Dopita , M. A., Kewley , L. J., Sutherland , R. S., & Nicholls , D. C. 2016, , 361, 61

    2016

  18. [26]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058

    2017

  19. [27]

    W., Korista , K

    Ferguson , J. W., Korista , K. T., Baldwin , J. A., & Ferland , G. J. 1997, , 487, 122

    1997

  20. [28]

    J., Keaveney , N., & Redman , M

    Fitzgerald , K., Harvey , E. J., Keaveney , N., & Redman , M. P. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 32, 100382

    2020

  21. [29]

    2021, , 649, A18

    Galliano , F., Nersesian , A., Bianchi , S., et al. 2021, , 649, A18

    2021

  22. [30]

    2022, , 926, 80

    Garg , P., Narayanan , D., Byler , N., et al. 2022, , 926, 80

    2022

  23. [31]

    L., et al

    Garg , P., Narayanan , D., Sanders , R. L., et al. 2024, , 972, 113

    2024

  24. [32]

    2025, , 978, 70

    Garner , R., Kennicutt , R., Rousseau-Nepton , L., et al. 2025, , 978, 70

    2025

  25. [33]

    2008, , 391, L113

    Groves , B., Nefs , B., & Brandl , B. 2008, , 391, L113

    2008

  26. [34]

    2018, , 854, 68

    Hu , N., Wang , E., Lin , Z., et al. 2018, , 854, 68

    2018

  27. [35]

    L., Kannappan , S

    Hutchens , Z. L., Kannappan , S. J., Berlind , A. A., et al. 2023, , 956, 51

    2023

  28. [36]

    J., et al

    Indahl , B., Zeimann , G., Hill , G. J., et al. 2021, , 916, 11

    2021

  29. [37]

    & Yan , R

    Ji , X. & Yan , R. 2022, , 659, A112

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., & Sutherland , R

    Jin , Y., Kewley , L. J., & Sutherland , R. 2022, , 927, 37

    2022

  31. [39]

    E., Pellegrini , E

    Kang , D. E., Pellegrini , E. W., Ardizzone , L., et al. 2022, , 512, 617

    2022

  32. [40]

    J., Stark , D

    Kannappan , S. J., Stark , D. V., Eckert , K. D., et al. 2013, , 777, 42

    2013

  33. [41]

    & Inoue , A

    Kashino , D. & Inoue , A. K. 2019, , 486, 1053

    2019

  34. [42]

    2022, , 512, 348

    Katz , H. 2022, , 512, 348

    2022

  35. [43]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2211.04626

    Katz , H., Liu , S., Kimm , T., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2211.04626

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    Katz , H., Rosdahl , J., Kimm , T., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 44

    2023

  37. [45]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

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

    2003

  38. [46]

    J., Dopita , M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., Heisler , C. A., & Trevena , J. 2001, , 556, 121

    2001

  39. [47]

    J., Nicholls , D

    Kewley , L. J., Nicholls , D. C., & Sutherland , R. S. 2019, , 57, 511

    2019

  40. [48]

    R., & Matzner , C

    Khullar , S., Federrath , C., Krumholz , M. R., & Matzner , C. D. 2021, , 507, 4335

    2021

  41. [49]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102

    2013

  42. [50]

    T., Blanc , G

    Kreckel , K., Ho , I. T., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2019, , 887, 80

    2019

  43. [51]

    2017, , 602, A45

    Lebouteiller , V., P \'e quignot , D., Cormier , D., et al. 2017, , 602, A45

    2017

  44. [52]

    & Ramambason , L

    Lebouteiller , V. & Ramambason , L. 2022, , 667, A34

    2022

  45. [53]

    2024, , 527, 9480

    Lecroq , M., Charlot , S., Bressan , A., et al. 2024, , 527, 9480

    2024

  46. [54]

    C., Cormier , D., Hony , S., et al

    Madden , S. C., Cormier , D., Hony , S., et al. 2020, , 643, A141

    2020

  47. [55]

    & Mannucci , F

    Maiolino , R. & Mannucci , F. 2019, , 27, 3

    2019

  48. [56]

    2024, , 689, A78

    Marconi , A., Amiri , A., Feltre , A., et al. 2024, , 689, A78

    2024

  49. [57]

    2020, , 636, A42

    Mingozzi , M., Belfiore , F., Cresci , G., et al. 2020, , 636, A42

    2020

  50. [58]

    J., Kannappan , S

    Moffett , A. J., Kannappan , S. J., Berlind , A. A., et al. 2015, , 812, 89

    2015

  51. [59]

    2013, pyCloudy: Tools to manage astronomical Cloudy photoionization code

    Morisset , C. 2013, pyCloudy: Tools to manage astronomical Cloudy photoionization code

    2013

  52. [60]

    F., et al

    Morisset , C., Charlot , S., S \'a nchez , S. F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints; accepted for publication in MNRAS, n/a, arXiv:2501.05424

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to ApJ, n/a, arXiv:2412.04541

    Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., Isobe , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to ApJ, n/a, arXiv:2412.04541

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C., Sutherland , R

    Nicholls , D. C., Sutherland , R. S., Dopita , M. A., Kewley , L. J., & Groves , B. A. 2017, , 466, 4403

    2017

  55. [63]

    Osterbrock , D. E. & Ferland , G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  56. [64]

    2023, , 678, A198

    Palud , P., Einig , L., Le Petit , F., et al. 2023, , 678, A198

    2023

  57. [65]

    W., Drory , N., Guillermo A

    Pellegrini , E. W., Drory , N., Guillermo A. , B., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, Astro 2020 White Paper, arXiv:1905.00311

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2008, , 478, 371

    P \'e quignot , D. 2008, , 478, 371

    2008

  59. [67]

    W., et al

    P \'e quignot , D., Amara , M., Liu , X. W., et al. 2002, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 12, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. W. J. Henney , J. Franco , & M. Martos , 142--143

    2002

  60. [68]

    J., et al

    Poetrodjojo , H., Groves , B., Kewley , L. J., et al. 2018, , 479, 5235

    2018

  61. [69]

    S., Kannappan , S

    Polimera , M. S., Kannappan , S. J., Richardson , C. T., et al. 2022, , 931, 44

    2022

  62. [70]

    2022, , 667, A35

    Ramambason , L., Lebouteiller , V., Bik , A., et al. 2022, , 667, A35

    2022

  63. [71]

    C., et al

    Ramambason , L., Lebouteiller , V., Madden , S. C., et al. 2024, , 681, A14

    2024

  64. [72]

    2020, , 644, A21

    Ramambason , L., Schaerer , D., Stasi \'n ska , G., et al. 2020, , 644, A21

    2020

  65. [73]

    A., Topping , M

    Reddy , N. A., Topping , M. W., Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., & Brammer , G. 2023, , 952, 167

    2023

  66. [74]

    C., Galliano , F., et al

    R \'e my-Ruyer , A., Madden , S. C., Galliano , F., et al. 2014, , 563, A31

    2014

  67. [75]

    T., Allen , J

    Richardson , C. T., Allen , J. T., Baldwin , J. A., Hewett , P. C., & Ferland , G. J. 2014, , 437, 2376

    2014

  68. [76]

    T., Allen , J

    Richardson , C. T., Allen , J. T., Baldwin , J. A., et al. 2016, , 458, 988

    2016

  69. [77]

    T., Polimera , M

    Richardson , C. T., Polimera , M. S., Kannappan , S. J., Moffett , A. J., & Bittner , A. S. 2019, , 486, 3541

    2019

  70. [78]

    T., Simpson , C., Polimera , M

    Richardson , C. T., Simpson , C., Polimera , M. S., et al. 2022, , 927, 165

    2022

  71. [79]

    L., Brooks , A

    Riggs , C. L., Brooks , A. M., Munshi , F., et al. 2024, , 977, 20

    2024

  72. [80]

    2023, , 521, 1727

    Romero , M., Corcho-Caballero , P., Mill \'a n-Irigoyen , I., Moll \'a , M., & Ascasibar , Y. 2023, , 521, 1727

    2023

  73. [81]

    & Catinella , B

    Saintonge , A. & Catinella , B. 2022, , 60, 319

    2022

  74. [82]

    V., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55

    2016

  75. [83]

    2022, , 658, A188

    Santoro , F., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al. 2022, , 658, A188

    2022

  76. [84]

    R., et al

    Sharda , P., Ginzburg , O., Krumholz , M. R., et al. 2024, , 528, 2232

    2024

  77. [85]

    R., Wisnioski , E., et al

    Sharda , P., Krumholz , M. R., Wisnioski , E., et al. 2021, , 502, 5935

    2021

  78. [86]

    C., Papovich , C., Momcheva , I., et al

    Simons , R. C., Papovich , C., Momcheva , I., et al. 2021, , 923, 203

    2021

  79. [87]

    & Sawicki , M

    Sorba , R. & Sawicki , M. 2015, , 452, 235

    2015

  80. [88]

    & Sawicki , M

    Sorba , R. & Sawicki , M. 2018, , 476, 1532

    2018

  81. [89]

    V., Kannappan , S

    Stark , D. V., Kannappan , S. J., Wei , L. H., et al. 2013, , 769, 82

    2013

  82. [90]

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Cid Fernandes , R., Mateus , A., Sodr \'e , L., & Asari , N. V. 2006, , 371, 972

    2006

  83. [91]

    2015, , 576, A83

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Izotov , Y., Morisset , C., & Guseva , N. 2015, , 576, A83

    2015

  84. [92]

    J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A

    Tacconi , L. J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A. 2020, , 58, 157

    2020

  85. [93]

    D., Groves , B

    Thomas , A. D., Groves , B. A., Sutherland , R. S., et al. 2016, , 833, 266

    2016

  86. [94]

    A., Heckman , T

    Tremonti , C. A., Heckman , T. M., Kauffmann , G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898

    2004

  87. [95]

    2016, , 460, 1739

    Vale Asari , N., Stasi \'n ska , G., Morisset , C., & Cid Fernandes , R. 2016, , 460, 1739

    2016

  88. [96]

    2025, , 693, A147

    Varese , M., Lebouteiller , V., Ramambason , L., et al. 2025, , 693, A147

    2025

  89. [97]

    G., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al

    Williams , T. G., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al. 2022, , 509, 1303

    2022

  90. [98]

    N., et al

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2022, , 927, 192

    2022

  91. [99]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  92. [100]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.