Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The evolution of the sizes and angular momentum content of galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The COLIBRE simulations reproduce the observed galaxy size–mass and angular-momentum–mass relations across cosmic time, for discs and spheroids alike, with a high-redshift offset attributed to dust.

desk verdict Solid first systematic COLIBRE size/angular-momentum validation paper: transparent about calibration, strong on independent tests, but the high-z dust explanation is a real soft spot that needs to be shown, not just cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.26200 v2 pith:DS5HLVU7 submitted 2026-03-27 astro-ph.GA

Aaron D. Ludlow , Katy L. Proctor , Joop Schaye , Filip Huško , Victor J. Forouhar Moreno , Danail Obreschkow , Evgenii Chaikin , Matthieu Schaller
show 7 more authors
Sylvia Ploeckinger Alejandro Benítez-Llambay Kyle A. Oman Robert J. McGibbon James W. Trayford Carlos S. Frenk Alexander J. Richings
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxysize–massrelationspecificangularmomentumcosmologicalhydrodynamicalsimulationsevolutionmorphologystar-formingandpassivegalaxiesscalingrelations
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 aims to establish that a single cosmological hydrodynamical simulation package, COLIBRE, produces realistic galaxy sizes and angular momenta across most of cosmic time. At z=0 the simulations match observed size–mass relations over stellar masses from roughly 10^8 to 10^11.5 solar masses, for half-mass and half-light radii in several bands, for a surface-density-threshold radius, and for baryonic half-mass radii. They also reproduce the observed parallel sequences of star-forming discs and quenched spheroids in the specific-angular-momentum–mass plane, and the angular momentum of star-forming galaxies matches observations out to z≈1.5. At z≳2 massive simulated galaxies are smaller than observed, which the paper suggests may be caused by dust attenuation that is absent from the simulated size measurements. This matters because it ties size, angular momentum, and morphology to a common set of physical processes and offers a tested setting for future studies of how galaxies acquire and lose angular momentum.

What carries the argument

The central object is the COLIBRE suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, which uses a four-to-one dark-matter-to-baryon particle ratio, cooling below 10^4 K, and stellar and AGN feedback calibrated to observed z=0 galaxy masses and size–mass relations. The quantities carrying the argument are the stellar specific angular momentum (angular momentum per unit stellar mass), the three-dimensional and projected stellar half-mass radii, wavelength-dependent half-light radii, and the R1 radius defined by a stellar surface density threshold of 1 solar mass per square parsec. The paper builds its case by comparing simulation to observation across all of these definitions, across morphologi

What would settle it

Measure half-light radii from dust-attenuated mock images of the simulated galaxies, using the dust masses COLIBRE already tracks, and compare them to the same observed samples at z≈0 and z≈2–3. If the simulated u-band and near-infrared sizes do not grow by roughly 0.1–0.4 dex at the relevant masses, the dust explanation for the high-redshift discrepancy collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that COLIBRE—a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation with gas cooling below 10^4 K and feedback calibrated to observed z=0 stellar masses and sizes—simultaneously reproduces the observed size–mass and specific angular momentum–mass relations for central galaxies over a wide mass range and across redshift. The agreement holds for multiple, physically distinct size definitions: three-dimensional and projected half-mass radii, rest-frame u-, r-, and z-band half-light radii, the radius enclosing 90 per cent of the light, the R1 radius where stellar surface density falls below 1 solar mass per square parsec, and baryonic half-mass radii. The simula

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that dust—neglected in the simulated size measurements but present in observed sizes—neither creates the apparent agreement at z=0 nor hides a genuine structural failure at z≳2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, galaxy sizes and spins in the model are set by the same feedback-regulated processes that reproduce the stellar mass function, so structure does not require independent fine-tuning over most of the sampled range.
  • The parallel star-forming and passive sequences in the angular momentum–mass plane imply that disc–spheroid differences in size and spin are a single predicted outcome of the model, not separate adjustments.
  • If dust explains the high-redshift offset, size evolution inferred from rest-frame optical or UV observations at z≳2 includes a dust contribution and is not a pure measure of structural change.
  • The agreement for star-forming galaxies out to z≈1.5 gives a quantitative constraint on how much halo angular momentum galaxies retain at early times, which is central to disc formation theory.
  • The z≈0 agreement across many size definitions makes the simulation a practical tool for interpreting observed sizes, including low-surface-brightness measurements at large radii.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If dust really explains the z≳2 gap, then dust-free rest-frame near-infrared sizes should agree with the simulations better than optical sizes do; this is directly testable with existing multi-band samples.
  • Since COLIBRE already tracks dust, the authors could turn the suspected explanation into a prediction by measuring half-light radii from mock images that include dust attenuation; the paper leaves this as an explicit next step.
  • The strong aperture dependence of specific angular momentum for massive galaxies suggests that observational estimates built from extrapolated rotation curves may systematically miss halo-scale angular momentum, which matters when comparing the high-mass end of the j–M plane.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same comparison to satellites and to morphologies defined by bulge-to-total ratios rather than kinematic disc fractions, which would test whether the structural realism extends beyond central galaxies.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes galaxy sizes and specific angular momentum in the COLIBRE cosmological hydrodynamical simulations across three resolution levels, comparing with observed scaling relations from z=0 to z=4. At z=0, COLIBRE is reported to reproduce the observed size–mass relation for several definitions—2D/3D stellar half-mass radii, Sérsic-fit mass- and r-band radii, u/z-band half-light and 90%-light radii, the R1 surface-density radius, and baryonic half-mass radii—including splits by morphology and star-formation activity. The stellar and baryonic specific angular momentum–mass relations also match local observations, and the stellar j*-M* relation matches star-forming galaxies at z≈0.5–1.5. At z≳2, intermediate-mass COLIBRE galaxies are 0.1–0.5 dex smaller than observed, and the star-forming/passive size separation is muted; the paper attributes this to neglected dust attenuation, supported only by an unpublished preliminary test. Section 2.4 is transparent that the z=0 half-mass radius relation used for calibration is not an independent test.

Significance. If the conclusions were fully supported, this would be a valuable validation of a modern simulation suite: the multi-resolution COLIBRE set, the breadth of size definitions (R1, baryonic radii, multi-band light radii), and the inclusion of j*-M* and baryonic j-M relations provide genuinely independent constraints beyond the calibrated z=0 Rstar50 relation. The appendices on convergence, satellites, aperture effects, and stellar-mass scatter are useful and strengthen the paper. Public code and data availability are additional assets. The main limitation is that the z>2 size discrepancy—which the headline 'across cosmic time' claim depends on—is reconciled by an untested dust argument rather than a forward-modelled mock-observation analysis. This is fixable by adding the mock analysis or by restricting the success claim to z≲1.5–2.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 10; also Fig. 6] Fig. 10 shows that at 2.0<z<4.0 and 10^9.5≲M*/M⊙≲10^11, the simulated R_1µm,50 values are 0.1–0.5 dex smaller than Song et al. (2025). The only quantitative reconciliation is the one-sentence statement in §3.2 that 'preliminary tests indicate that accounting for dust attenuation increases the apparent sizes... by ~0.1–0.4 dex at z=3.' This test is not shown and is not a full mock: no PSF convolution, GALFIT measurement, or Song et al. resolution/quality cuts are applied. The same ad hoc dust explanation is used for the low R_u,90 at z=0. Because the claim of a 'self-consistent and observationally successful framework' spans z=0–4, this untested premise is load-bearing. I request a full forward-modelled dust comparison (or at least a described quantitative test), or a revision that states agreement at z≲1.5–2 and reports z>2 as an open tension.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 9; §4 item (v)] The reduced separation between star-forming and passive size–mass relations at z≳0.75 (Fig. 9) is a second discrepancy relevant to the morphology-evolution claim. For the Song et al. comparison the paper states 'we do not show these results explicitly', and then appeals again to dust. The statement in §3.2 that differences may reflect dust attenuation is a hypothesis, not a demonstrated result. Please quantify the star-forming/passive split (even in an appendix) or temper the claim that COLIBRE reproduces the observed morphology segregation at high redshift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13] The in-panel labels and the text/reference list disagree: 'Swinbank et al. (2022)' appears in a panel while the text and references use Swinbank et al. (2017); similarly, 'Gillman et al. (2017)' conflicts with Gillman et al. (2020). Please correct.
  2. [Throughout] Typos: 'correlats' in §1, 'defintion' in the Fig. 2 caption, 'fidcuial' in Appendix C, 'the the' in §3.5, and 'V ogelsberger' in the reference list.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption says sizes are for 'random orientations', whereas §2.3 defines 2D sizes as averages over three orthogonal projections. Use consistent language.
  4. [§3.2] The reference to 'the lower panel, second from the right' is ambiguous for Fig. 10; specify the redshift bin instead.
  5. [Abstract and §4] The abstract and summary state the z=0 size–mass agreement without repeating the §2.4 caveat that the Rstar50 relation is a calibration target. A brief reminder would help readers weigh the evidence appropriately.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Acknowledged built-in z=0 size match; independent z>0 and angular-momentum tests carry the central claim

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4, 'Calibration versus prediction in simulation-observation comparisons'; also Abstract and Fig. 4 caption]
    "COLIBRE subgrid models for supernova and AGN feedback were calibrated to reproduce the median z=0 galaxy size–mass relation of Hardwick et al. (2022)... comparisons of simulated and observed size–mass relations based on similar size definitions are not fully independent tests of the model, and some level of agreement is expected by construction if the calibration was successful."

    The z=0 two-dimensional stellar half-mass radius relation Rstar50-Mstar is the calibration target itself: subgrid parameters were tuned to match Hardwick et al. (2022). Reporting that z=0 Rstar50 agrees with observed size-mass relations therefore relies in part on a quantity that was fitted, not predicted. The paper explicitly flags this ('not fully independent... expected by construction'), so the circularity is limited to that comparison; the z>0 evolution, alternative size definitions, morphology splits, and all angular-momentum relations are not calibration targets and remain independent.

full rationale

The only concrete reduction from inputs to outputs is the z=0 stellar half-mass radius comparison against the Hardwick et al. (2022) SMR, which Section 2.4 admits was used to calibrate the subgrid physics. That admission is a stated limitation and should be weighed: it makes the generic Abstract claim 'COLIBRE reproduces observed size-mass relations at z=0' partially built-in. However, the paper does not present the Hardwick Rstar50 comparison as a prediction; it labels it as calibration and explicitly lists the genuinely predictive tests: z>0 size evolution (Sections 3.2), the stellar and baryonic angular momentum-mass relations (Sections 3.3-3.4), R1, light-weighted radii in multiple bands, baryonic sizes, and morphology/SFR splits. Those tests are not determined by the calibration and provide independent content. The 'preliminary dust tests' invoked to explain the z>2 size discrepancy are unpublished and not forward-modelled, but this is an evidentiary gap / correctness risk, not circular reasoning: the paper does not use the dust adjustment as a derived prediction of the model. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears; COLIBRE is validated against external, machine-independent observational datasets. Overall the central claim does not reduce to its inputs, so the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central result rests on the calibrated subgrid parameters inherited from COLIBRE's construction, the fidelity of SPH and subgrid models, and the comparability of dust-free simulation measurements to observed galaxies. The main free parameters are the feedback calibration values, the main-sequence classification fit, and the chosen sample-definition thresholds.

free parameters (6)
  • Subgrid feedback calibration parameters = not quoted in this paper
    Stellar and AGN feedback parameters were calibrated at m7 resolution using Gaussian process emulators fitted to the GAMA DR4 z=0 stellar mass function and the Hardwick et al. (2022) size–mass relation (Section 2.1.2). These parameters directly set the galaxy sizes that are the paper's central observable.
  • AGN coupling efficiency = not quoted
    Independently calibrated so that the black-hole mass–stellar mass relation matches observations (Section 2.1.2).
  • Resolution-dependent manual subgrid adjustments = not quoted
    At m5 and m6 resolution, subgrid parameters were 'adjusted manually to achieve convergence' (Section 2.1.2), introducing hand-tuning not described quantitatively.
  • Star-forming main-sequence fit (eq. 1) = log[sSFR/Gyr^-1] = 0.40z - 0.04z^2 - 0.73
    This analytic fit to COLIBRE's own median sSFR–M* relations is used to classify star-forming versus passive galaxies throughout the paper (Section 2.5).
  • Observed stellar-mass scatter sigma_logM = min(0.1 + 0.1z, 0.3) dex
    Adopted to mimic observational mass uncertainties when comparing simulation medians to observed relations (Section 3.1, Appendix D); the functional form is assumed.
  • Morphology and gas-fraction thresholds = D/T >= 0.6 / <= 0.3; fgas >= 0.6 / <= 0.3; nS <= 1.5 / >= 2.5
    Chosen by hand to define late/early-type and gas-rich/gas-poor subsamples; these thresholds affect the subsample splits in Figures 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with DES Y3 '3x2pt + All Ext.' parameters and second-order LPT initial conditions
    Inherited from the COLIBRE simulation setup; the size and angular-momentum predictions depend on this background cosmology (Section 2.1.1).
  • domain assumption SPHENIX SPH and the subgrid models for cooling, star formation, feedback, and dust formation accurately capture the physics determining galaxy sizes and angular momentum
    The whole analysis assumes the unresolved sub-resolution models do not bias the resolved structural properties; calibration to z=0 data partially tests this but does not prove it (Section 2.1.2).
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models (Bruzual & Charlot 2003) and the dust-free rest-frame GAMA-band magnitudes correctly represent observed light distributions
    Half-light radii are computed from synthetic magnitudes; dust attenuation is neglected, which the paper states as a limitation (Sections 2.3.1 and 3.2).
  • domain assumption Observational datasets (van der Wel 2024, Song 2025, SPARC, GAMA, xGASS) have systematic uncertainties small enough for the claimed agreement and discrepancies to be meaningful
    The comparison treats measured sizes, masses, and selection criteria as ground truth; if Sersic fitting or mass-to-light assumptions are biased, the validation conclusion weakens (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Convergence: galaxies with M* above 100–1000 times the baryonic particle mass are numerically resolved so that resolution does not change the relations
    The paper's resolution limits and appendices support this, but it is an assumption about numerics that is not proven mathematically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The evolution of the sizes and angular momentum content of galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DS5HLVU7

@misc{pith2026260326200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The evolution of the sizes and angular momentum content of galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DS5HLVU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.26200}
}
abstract

We analyse the sizes and specific angular momentum content of galaxies in the Colibre cosmological hydrodynamical simulations spanning two orders of magnitude in mass resolution. We compare the predicted size-mass and angular momentum-mass relations to a broad range of observational measurements spanning redshifts $z=0$ to $4$. At $z=0$, Colibre reproduces observed size-mass relations over the sampled mass range $10^8 \lesssim M_\star/{\rm M_\odot}\lesssim 10^{11.5}$, and for multiple size definitions, including two- and three-dimensional stellar half-mass radii, half-light radii across several wavelengths, as well as alternative measures such as baryonic half-mass radii and characteristic radii defined by stellar surface density thresholds. The simulations also recover the observed segregation of galaxies in the size-mass plane by morphological type and star formation rate, and reproduce the distinct, approximately parallel sequences followed by star-forming discs and quenched spheroids in the stellar specific angular momentum-mass plane. The angular momentum content of star-forming Colibre galaxies matches that of observed systems out to $z\approx 1.5$. At higher redshifts, massive galaxies ($ 10^{9.5}\lesssim M_\star/{\rm M_\odot}\lesssim 10^{11}$) in the simulations are somewhat smaller than observed, and the separation between star-forming and passive populations in the size-mass plane is reduced relative to observations, while at lower masses the agreement remains good. This apparent discrepancy may reflect the effects of dust attenuation, which is neglected in our analysis and may preferentially obscure the central regions of observed systems. Overall, our findings highlight the close connection between galaxy size, angular momentum, and morphology over cosmic time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.26200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Median stellar surface density profiles, Σ⋆(R), for z = 0 central galaxies of mass M⋆ = 109 M⊙ and 1011 M⊙. Different coloured curves cor￾respond to different simulations. Thick segments mark the radial range used for profile fitting and error bars indicate the 16th to 84th percentile scatter in Σ⋆(R) for individual galaxies in L200m6. Grey lines show the mean of the best-fitting Sérsic profiles obtained separately … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Virtual Hubble Space Telescope observations of a z = 0 star-forming disc galaxy (left panel; M⋆ = 8.8×1010 M⊙, SFR=2.5M⊙ yr−1 ) and a passive elliptical galaxy (right panel; M⋆ = 1.5 × 1011 M⊙, SFR=0.2M⊙ yr−1 ). Both galaxies are viewed along a line of sight parallel to the total stellar angular momentum vector. The circles in each panel highlight three measures of galaxy size used in this paper (see Section 2.3.1 f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three-dimensional stellar half-mass radius (r⋆,50; upper panels) and stellar specific angular momentum (j⋆; lower panels) as a function of stellar mass at z = 0, 1, 2, and 3 (left to right). Median relations are constructed by combining galaxies from different runs above a resolution-dependent mass limit. For m5 resolution (L025m5 at z = 0, and L050m5 at z > 0) we include all galaxies with M⋆ ≥ 100mbar; for L200m6 a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper panel shows mass-weighted size estimates: the two￾dimensional half-mass radii R⋆,50 from xGASS (Hardwick et al. 2022) and GAMA (Bellstedt et al. 2024), the radius R1 at which the stellar surface den￾sity equals Σ⋆ = 1M⊙ pc−2 (Trujillo et al. 2020), and the ba…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Size–mass relations for z = 0 central galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations compared with recent observations. The top panels show median 2D stellar half-mass radii, R Ser ⋆,50, compared with observational measurements from Bellstedt et al. (2024). The bottom panels show…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Characteristic radii Rx,50 (upper panels) and Rx,90 (lower panels) where “x” represents the u-band (left column) and z-band (right column) as a function of stellar mass. Coloured lines show the median relations for sim￾ulated central galaxies at z = 0 and do not includ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Size–mass relations for z = 0 central galaxies compared with the observational results of Trujillo et al. (2020). Sizes are defined by the radius R1 where the (face-on) stellar surface mass density drops below Σ1 = 1M⊙ pc−2 . Different line styles correspond to median …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The z = 0 baryonic SMR for late-type (i.e. kinematic D/T ≥ 0.6) central COLIBRE galaxies, compared with disc galaxies from the SPARC sur￾vey (Hua et al. 2025). Dotted, solid, and dashed curves show the median relations for L025m5, L200m6, and L400m7, respectively. Each…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Median r⋆,50–M⋆ relations at redshifts 0.5 < z < 1.5. The upper panels show all observed galaxies and simulated central galaxies; the lower panels show median trends for subsets of star-forming (blue) and passive (red) galaxies separately. These classifications are bas…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two-dimensional half-light radii, R1µm,50, as a function of stellar mass, M⋆, for all observed and simulated central galaxies over the redshift range 0 ≤ z ≤ 4. Sizes are estimated from 1µm surface brightness profiles measured within 50 kpc apertures and for random or…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Median stellar specific angular momentum (j⋆) as a function of stellar mass (M⋆) for simulated central galaxies at z = 0. Early- and late￾type systems are shown in blue and red, respectively. Dotted lines indicate L025m5, solid lines L200m6, and dashed lines L400m7. I…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The specific baryonic angular momentum–mass relation for z = 0 late-type central galaxies (kinematic D/T ≥ 0.6) in COLIBRE, compared to SPARC galaxies from Hua et al. (2025). Dotted, solid, and dashed lines show the median relations for L025m5, L200m6, and L400m7, res…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The j⋆–M⋆ relations for central simulated galaxies at z = 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 (left to right, respectively) that lie within 1 dex of the redshift-dependent star-formation main sequence. The distributions of galaxies in L200m6 are shown as a 2D histogram; dotted, solid, …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the (100cMpc) 3 m6 (yellow) and (200cMpc) 3 m7 (red) COLIBRE volumes adopting the thermal- (solid lines) and hybrid-AGN (dashed lines) feedback schemes. Shaded regions show the 16th to 84th percentile scatter for galaxies in L100m6. Other runs exhibit co…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The influence of feedback on the baryonic content of haloes in the COLIBRE simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The halo gas fraction–halo mass relation in COLIBRE is non-monotonic and depends strongly on the subgrid AGN feedback model, with jet-hybrid feedback producing lower group gas fractions that better match eROSITA and k...

  2. The morphologies of present-day galaxies in the COLIBRE simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    In COLIBRE, today's galaxy morphology is set mostly by stellar mass: galaxies near M*≈1–2×10^10 M⊙ are the most disc-dominated, above ~2×10^11 M⊙ everything is spheroidal, and halo properties matter only weakly at fixed mass.

  3. How large can galaxies be? Ultra-deep imaging of IC 1101, the most extended known galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Ultra-deep imaging places the edge of IC 1101's main stellar body at ~260 kpc, a ~520 kpc diameter that is the largest galaxy edge measured to date.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2022, Phys

    Abbott et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520 Arjona-Gálvez E., et al., 2025, A&A, 699, A301 Bahé Y . M., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 167 Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, ApJ, 717, 379 Bellstedt S., Robotham A. S. G., Driver S. P., Lagos C. d. P., Davies L. J. M., Cook R. H. W., 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5452 Benítez-Llambay A., et al., 2025, arXiv ...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1949]

    arXiv:2510.17770 Huang K.-H., et al., 2017, ApJ, 838, 6 Hunter J

    Central Air Documents Office, Dayton, OH, pp 195–197 Hua Z., Lelli F., Di Teodoro E., McGaugh S., Schombert J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2510.17770 Huang K.-H., et al., 2017, ApJ, 838, 6 Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90 Husko et al. 2026, Manuscript in preparation Huško F., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2509.051...

    arXiv 2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.