Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Model selection using the HII galaxy Hubble diagram

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 231 HII galaxies out to redshift 7.5, this paper claims the Rh=ct universe is strongly favored over flat-ΛCDM and wCDM by BIC model selection, though the preference fades when intrinsic scatter is allowed.

desk verdict Transparent update of the HIIGx model-selection analysis, but the headline Rh=ct preference evaporates once intrinsic scatter is included. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04819 v1 pith:FNDR5Q4Q submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Jun-Jie Wei , Fulvio Melia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords HIIgalaxiesgiantextragalacticregionsstandardcandlesHubblediagrammodelselectionRh=ctuniverseBayesianinformationcriterionJWST
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

This paper uses 231 HII galaxies and giant extragalactic HII regions, now reaching redshift 7.5, to test which cosmology describes the expansion of the universe across about 95% of cosmic history. The authors treat the correlation between Hβ line luminosity and gas velocity dispersion as a standard candle and compare three models: flat ΛCDM, wCDM, and the Rh=ct universe. They report that the Rh=ct universe is strongly favored by the Bayesian Information Criterion, with probabilities of 91.8% versus 7.4% for flat ΛCDM and 0.8% for wCDM. They also identify the key caveat: if an unknown intrinsic dispersion in the standard-candle relation is fitted as a free parameter, the likelihoods of Rh=ct and flat ΛCDM become nearly equal, at the cost of a matter-density value in ~2.5σ tension with CMB-inferred estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is the L(Hβ)-σ correlation, the empirical link between a galaxy's Hβ luminosity and its ionized-gas velocity dispersion that makes HII galaxies usable as standard candles. Because luminosity distance is cosmology-dependent, the relation's slope and intercept are fitted simultaneously with the cosmological parameters in a maximum-likelihood analysis. Model ranking uses the Bayesian Information Criterion, $\mathrm{BIC} = -2\ln L + (\ln N)\,n$, which penalizes extra free parameters; relative BIC probabilities are then derived from the BIC differences among the three models. The Rh=ct universe enters with the closed-form luminosity distance $D_L = (c/H_0)(1+z)\ln(1+z)$, while ΛCDM and wCDM use the integrated Friedmann distance with free $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and, for wCDM, $w_{\rm de}$.

What would settle it

Measure the intrinsic dispersion of the L(Hβ)-σ relation directly, either from repeated observations of the same HII galaxies or from the scatter in the 36-source anchor sample: if σ_int is confidently nonzero at the fitted level 0.28±0.02, then the Table 2 BIC comparison omitting it is biased and the 91.8% probability for Rh=ct does not stand. A complementary check is to fit flat ΛCDM with σ_int included while fixing Ω_m to the CMB-inferred value; if the fit remains good, the ~2.5σ tension vanishes and the model tie favors ΛCDM.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the HII galaxy Hubble diagram, extended to z≈7.5 by five newly discovered sources, is an effective tool for model selection, and that it favors the Rh=ct universe over the standard flat ΛCDM and wCDM models. The headline result is a BIC probability of 91.8% for Rh=ct against 7.4% for flat ΛCDM and 0.8% for wCDM, obtained while simultaneously optimizing the slope and intercept of the L(Hβ)-σ relation with the cosmological parameters. The paper itself flags the main caveat: adding a global intrinsic scatter σ_int as an extra free parameter makes the likelihoods of Rh=ct and flat ΛCDM nearly equal (48.8% and 47.3%), and pushes the inferred matter density to values about 2.5σ above the CMB-based value. On the authors' reading, the high-redshift extension of the probe between z≈2.3 and z≈7.5 is what gives the model comparison its new discriminating power.

Load-bearing premise

The headline preference for Rh=ct assumes that the L(Hβ)-σ standard-candle relation has no intrinsic scatter beyond the quoted measurement errors; when a single intrinsic-dispersion parameter is added, the Rh=ct and flat ΛCDM likelihoods become nearly equal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the headline result is correct, the expansion history measured by HII galaxies out to z≈7.5 does not require dark energy with a tuned equation of state; the Rh=ct trajectory fits the whole range.
  • The HII galaxy Hubble diagram becomes a standard-candle probe that reaches about 95% of cosmic age, where ΛCDM and Rh=ct diverge, making it a stronger discriminator than Type Ia supernovae at low redshift.
  • The fate of the model comparison rests on the intrinsic scatter of the L(Hβ)-σ relation: if σ_int is nonzero at the level suggested by the authors' fit, the Table 2 odds (91.8% vs 7.4%) overstate the evidence for Rh=ct.
  • If the matter density near 0.74 inferred under ΛCDM with σ_int holds up, it deepens the existing tension with CMB-based cosmology and weakens the standard model independent of the BIC ranking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the Table 3 near-tie suggests that the apparent success of Rh=ct in Table 2 may be an artifact of model comparison where ΛCDM's extra parameters are penalized more heavily while the intrinsic scatter, if present, absorbs the difference; a likelihood-ratio test that includes σ_int shows no statistically significant preference.
  • My inference: a decisive extension would be to fix Ω_m at the CMB value in the ΛCDM fit with σ_int included; if ΛCDM then remains competitive, the claimed need for Rh=ct disappears, whereas if the fit degrades sharply, the 2.5σ matter-density tension becomes the real discriminator.
  • My inference: the same dataset could be analyzed without converting to distance moduli, by comparing the predicted joint distribution of L(Hβ) and σ under each cosmology, which would remove the cosmology-dependent distance scale from the standard-candle calibration step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter uses the updated HIIGx/GEHR Hubble diagram of 231 sources, including five JWST-discovered HII galaxies at z up to about 7.5, to compare flat lambda-CDM, flat wCDM, and the Rh=ct universe. The cosmological parameters and the L(Hbeta)-sigma relation coefficients are fitted jointly by maximum likelihood, and model selection is performed with the Bayesian Information Criterion. The headline claim is that Rh=ct is strongly favored, with BIC probabilities of 91.8%, 7.4%, and 0.8% relative to flat lambda-CDM and wCDM (Table 2). The paper also reports a caveat in Section 4: adding a fitted intrinsic dispersion sigma_int to the L(Hbeta)-sigma relation makes the Rh=ct and flat-lambda-CDM likelihoods nearly equal (Table 3, 48.8% vs 47.3%).

Significance. If the headline result were robust, the HIIGx Hubble diagram to z about 7.5 would be an important new probe of the expansion history, extending well beyond Type Ia supernova samples. The paper makes good use of public JWST-era data and is transparent about the main caveat, explicitly presenting the sigma_int-included comparison. However, the central claim as stated is not robust: the authors' own Table 3 shows that adding a single nuisance parameter changes the conclusion qualitatively, and the enormous improvement in -2lnL implies that the zero-scatter likelihood used for the headline result is severely misspecified. The paper is therefore more a demonstration of the probe's potential and of the importance of characterizing sigma_int than a decisive model-selection result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3, Table 2; Section 4, Table 3] The headline claim of strong preference for Rh=ct is conditional on an assumption that the data strongly reject. The likelihoods in Equations (9)-(12) contain no intrinsic dispersion, while Equations (13)-(14) add sigma_int. Adding this single parameter lowers -2lnL by roughly 352 for Rh=ct and by roughly 356 for flat lambda-CDM, and the BIC probabilities in Table 3 become 48.8% vs 47.3%. A likelihood improvement of this size for one extra parameter demonstrates that the no-scatter likelihood is misspecified, so the BIC values in Table 2 are not a reliable basis for model selection. The abstract and conclusion should be reframed so that the sigma_int-included comparison is the primary result, or the authors should provide a formal justification for preferring the no-scatter fit despite its much worse likelihood.
  2. [Section 4] The statement that including sigma_int makes lambda-CDM and Rh=ct likelihoods comparable 'though at the expense of creating ~2.5 sigma tension between our inferred matter density Omega_m and its Planck-optimized value' does not rescue the preference for Rh=ct. That tension is between the sigma_int-included lambda-CDM fit and external Planck constraints; it is not a model-selection discriminator between lambda-CDM and Rh=ct, and it does not break the near-parity BIC probabilities in Table 3. The text should not imply that this tension restores the zero-scatter conclusion.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Table 2] The BIC probabilities are relative weights over the three fitted models, not calibrated probabilities that Rh=ct is 'the correct cosmology.' The difference between Rh=ct and lambda-CDM in Table 2 is Delta BIC = 5.04, which is moderate evidence rather than decisive, and the fact that the ranking reverses when a better-specified likelihood is used further weakens the interpretation. The wording in Sections 1 and 4 should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text says 'with wde = 1' for the lambda-CDM model; this should be wde = -1.
  2. [Equation (3)] The constant 100.2 in the distance-modulus expression is introduced without derivation or units; the units of L(Hbeta), F(Hbeta), and the resulting mu_obs should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Table 3] The best-fit sigma_int is reported as identical (0.28) for all three models; a sentence in the text explaining why this degeneracy occurs would help the reader.
  4. [References] Melia (2026) is cited as a future work; it should be marked as in press or forthcoming where appropriate.
  5. [Section 2] The propagation of the 2.1 km/s velocity calibration correction for the three JWST-NIRSpec sources is taken from Chavez et al.; a brief comment on the size of the resulting systematic uncertainty in the Hubble-diagram fits would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HIIGx BIC model selection is an external statistical test; the Rh=ct distance formula is explicit and not fitted from the data.

full rationale

The paper's model selection is computed from the 231-source HIIGx sample of Chávez et al. (2025) and an anchor sample with independently measured distance moduli. The Rh=ct luminosity distance (Eq. 7) is an explicit, parameter-free model definition cited to Melia (2003, 2007; Melia & Abdelqader 2009; Melia & Shevchuk 2012); it is not fitted from the HIIGx data. The BIC probabilities in Table 2 are obtained by maximizing the likelihoods in Eqs. (8)-(12) for each cosmology and applying the Schwarz criterion; the comparison is an external statistical test. The inclusion of sigma_int in Section 4 changes the conclusion but does not make it circular: it is a robustness check showing sensitivity to an untested likelihood assumption. The paper's heavy self-citation (Melia 2023, 2024a,b,c, 2026) is contextual, not load-bearing; the central BIC comparison would stand even without those citations. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is used to infer, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The near-equal likelihoods in Table 3 are a caveat and a correctness concern, not circularity.

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

The central model-selection claim depends on the empirical calibration of the L(Hβ)-σ relation and on the choice of BIC as the comparison statistic. The key free parameters are the nuisance parameters (α, β, and optionally σ_int) and the cosmological parameters (H0, Ωm, wde). The robustness test that adds σ_int flips the model ranking, so the axioms about the standard candle and the BIC criterion are load-bearing.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (intercept of L(Hβ)-σ relation) = 33.67 (Rh=ct), 33.72 (ΛCDM), 33.73 (wCDM)
    Fitted jointly with cosmological parameters; calibrates the standard candle relation.
  • beta (slope of L(Hβ)-σ relation) = 4.68 (Rh=ct), 4.64 (ΛCDM), 4.63 (wCDM)
    Fitted slope of the correlation; affects the distance modulus and likelihood.
  • H0 (Hubble constant) = 81.0 (Rh=ct), 82.4 (ΛCDM/wCDM)
    Fitted as a free parameter in all models; scales the luminosity distance.
  • Omega_m (matter density) = 0.44 (ΛCDM), 0.38 (wCDM)
    Free parameter in flat-ΛCDM and wCDM; controls the distance modulus at high z.
  • w_de (dark energy equation of state) = -0.72 (wCDM)
    Free parameter in wCDM; directly affects the expansion history.
  • sigma_int (intrinsic dispersion) = 0.28 (all models, Table 3)
    Fitted in the robustness test; when included, it removes the strong preference for Rh=ct.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The L(Hβ)-σ correlation serves as a standard candle for HIIGx and GEHR.
    Section 1 asserts the correlation and its use as a distance indicator; the entire analysis depends on this empirical relation being valid and universal.
  • domain assumption Velocity correction of 2.1 km/s for JWST sources lacking Balmer-line σ measurements.
    Section 2: this correction from Chávez et al. (2016) is applied to three sources; if incorrect, the high-z data points shift systematically.
  • domain assumption Gordon et al. (2003) extinction law and Balmer-decrement extinction adjustments.
    Section 2: extinction corrections affect the Hβ fluxes and therefore the derived luminosities and distance moduli.
  • domain assumption Spatial flatness (Ωk=0).
    Section 3 states 'we assume spatial flatness throughout our analysis'; this restricts the ΛCDM and wCDM parameter spaces and changes the distance formula.
  • standard math BIC is an appropriate model selection criterion for these non-nested models.
    Section 3 uses BIC = -2 ln L + (ln N)n based on Schwarz (1978); the validity of BIC for comparing non-nested models with different parameter counts is an assumption.
  • standard math Gaussian likelihood with independent errors and no covariance between sources.
    Equations (9)-(12) assume independent Gaussian errors for each HIIGx and anchor; any intrinsic correlations would alter the likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model selection using the HII galaxy Hubble diagram." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNDR5Q4Q

@misc{pith2026250604819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model selection using the HII galaxy Hubble diagram},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNDR5Q4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04819}
}
abstract

The proposal to use HII galaxies (HIIGx) and giant extragalactic HII regions (GEHR) as standard candles to construct the Hubble diagram at redshifts beyond the current reach of Type Ia supernovae has gained considerable support recently with the addition of five new HIIGx discovered by JWST. The updated sample of 231 sources now extends the redshift range of these objects to $z\sim 7.5$, mapping the Universe's expansion over $95\%$ of its current age. In this {\it Letter} we use these sources for model selection, and show that the $R_{\rm h}=ct$ universe is strongly favored by this probe over both flat-$\Lambda$CDM and $w$CDM, with relative Bayesian Information Criterion probabilities of, respectively, $91.8\%$, $7.4\%$ and $0.8\%$. A possible caveat with these results, however, is that an unknown dispersion, $\sigma_{\rm int}$, in the HIIGx standard candle relation can weaken the model comparisons. We find that the inclusion of $\sigma_{\rm int}$ as an additional, optimizable parameter makes the likelihoods of flat-$\Lambda$CDM and $R_{\rm h}=ct$ about equal, though at the expense of creating $\sim 2.5\sigma$ tension between our inferred matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and its {\it Planck}-optimized value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04819 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. 1-D probability distributions and 2-D regions with the 1-2σ con￾tours corresponding to the parameters α, β, H0, Ωm and wde in the wCDM model. 33.45 33.70 33.95 α 70 80 90 H0 [km s −1 Mpc −1 ] 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 β 4.6 4.8 β 70 80 90 H0 [km s−1 Mpc−1 ] Rh = ct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1-D probability distributions and 2-D regions with the 1-2σ con￾tours corresponding to the parameters α, β and H0 in Rh = ct. 3.3 The Rh = ct Universe By comparison, the Rh = ct universe has only one free parameter, H0. The results of fitting the L(Hβ)-σ relation with this cosmology are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Bergeron J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154903 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211...62B 211, 62

    doi:10.1086/154903 1977

  3. [3]

    Bordalo V., Telles E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...52B 735, 52

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/1/52 2011

  4. [4]

    Bosch G., Terlevich E., Terlevich R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04967.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329..481B 329, 481

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  6. [6]

    Ch \'a vez R., Terlevich E., Terlevich R., Plionis M., Bresolin F., Basilakos S., Melnick J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01299.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425L..56C 425, L56

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Ch \'a vez R., Terlevich R., Terlevich E., Bresolin F., Melnick J., Plionis M., Basilakos S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.3565C 442, 3565

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu987 2014

  8. [8]

    L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2431C 462, 2431

    Ch \'a vez R., Plionis M., Basilakos S., Terlevich R., Terlevich E., Melnick J., Bresolin F., Gonz \'a lez-Mor \'a n A. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2431C 462, 2431

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1813 2016

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Ch \'a vez R., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1264C 538, 1264

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Fern \'a ndez Arenas D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1250F 474, 1250

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    O., Tenorio-Tagle G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120..752F 120, 752

    Fuentes-Masip O., Mu \ n oz-Tu \ n \'o n C., Casta \ n eda H. O., Tenorio-Tagle G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120..752F 120, 752

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1441G 505, 1441

    Gonz \'a lez-Mor \'a n A. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1441G 505, 1441

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Misselt K. A., Landolt A. U., Wolff M. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..279G 594, 279

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    Kunth D., \"O stlin G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s001590000005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&ARv..10....1K 10, 1

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    Llerena M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A..53L 676, A53

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Mania D., Ratra B., 2012, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.07.011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhLB..715....9M 715, 9

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Supermassive black holes in the universe

    Melia F., 2003, The edge of infinity. Supermassive black holes in the universe . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2003

  11. [19]

    Melia F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12499.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1917M 382, 1917

    2007

  12. [20]

    Oxford: Taylor & Francis, @doi https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003081029

    Melia F., 2020, The Cosmic Spacetime . Oxford: Taylor & Francis, @doi https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003081029

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Melia F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521L..85M 521, L85

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Melia F., 2024a, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PDU....4601587M 46, 101587

    2024

  15. [23]

    Melia F., 2024b, @doi [European Physical Journal C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13652-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024EPJC...84.1279M 84, 1279

    doi

  16. [24]

    Melia F., 2024c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..10M 689, A10

    doi

  17. [25]

    Berlin: de Gruyter

    Melia F., 2026, The Physics of Cosmology . Berlin: de Gruyter

    2026

  18. [26]

    Melia F., Abdelqader M., 2009, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271809015746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18.1889M 18, 1889

    2009 doi

  19. [28]

    Melnick J., Moles M., Terlevich R., Garcia-Pelayo J.-M., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.4.849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226..849M 226, 849

    1987 doi

  20. [29]

    Melnick J., Terlevich R., Moles M., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/235.1.297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.235..297M 235, 297

    1988 doi

  21. [30]

    Melnick J., Terlevich R., Terlevich E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03112.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.311..629M 311, 629

    2000

  22. [31]

    Plionis M., Terlevich R., Basilakos S., Bresolin F., Terlevich E., Melnick J., Chavez R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19247.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.2981P 416, 2981

    2011

  23. [32]

    Schwarz G., 1978, Annals of Statistics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AnSta...6..461S 6, 461

    1978

  24. [33]

    Searle L., Sargent W. L. W., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...173...25S 173, 25

    1972 doi

  25. [34]

    R., Guzm \'a n R., Gallego J

    Siegel E. R., Guzm \'a n R., Gallego J. P., Ordu \ n a L \'o pez M., Rodr \' guez Hidalgo P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08539.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1117S 356, 1117

    2005

  26. [35]

    M., Tenorio-Tagle G., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Telles E., 2003, in Perez E., Gonzalez Delgado R. M., Tenorio-Tagle G., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 297, Star Formation Through Time. p. 143

    2003

  27. [36]

    Terlevich R., Melnick J., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/195.4.839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981MNRAS.195..839T 195, 839

    1981 doi

  28. [37]

    Terlevich R., Terlevich E., Melnick J., Ch \'a vez R., Plionis M., Bresolin F., Basilakos S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.3001T 451, 3001

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..102W 149, 102

    Wei J.-J., Wu X.-F., Melia F., Maier R. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..102W 149, 102

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    Wei J.-J., Wu X.-F., Melia F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.1144W 463, 1144

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    de Graaff A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..87D 684, A87

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.