Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Distant Galaxies with Neural Network Architecture

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Photometry alone finds 91% of JWST-confirmed Lyα galaxies

desk verdict Useful NN classifier with honest limitations, but the low-mass extrapolation and the bubble-size claim are softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14676 v1 pith:PZD37HIY submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.GA

Takehiro Yoshioka , Nobunari Kashikawa , Yoshihiro Takeda , Kei Ito , Yongming Liang , Rikako Ishimoto , Junya Arita , Yuri Nishimura
show 2 more authors
Hiroki Hoshi Shunta Shimizu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LyαemittersneuralnetworkSEDfittinggalaxyphysicalpropertiescosmicreionizationJWSTfractionionizedbubbles
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 claims that a neural network trained on spectroscopic surveys can predict whether a distant galaxy emits Lyα radiation using only six physical properties estimated from broadband photometry: star formation rate, stellar mass, UV magnitude, age, UV slope, and dust attenuation. The model achieves a 77% true positive rate and a 14% false positive rate when a threshold of P(LAE)>0.7 is used, and it flags 91% of spectroscopically confirmed JWST Lyα emitters as LAEs. If this works, astronomers could build large, continuous-redshift samples of Lyα emitters from photometric data alone, bypassing expensive spectroscopy and narrowband filters. The model also predicts a Lyα fraction that rises from z=3 to z=6 in line with previous work, and it suggests that ionized regions around z~7 galaxies are moderate-sized bubbles rather than a single large bubble.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neural network classifier itself: five hidden layers of 64 nodes each with eLU activation, 25% dropout, and a sigmoid output, trained with Adam on binary cross-entropy and ensembled by Monte-Carlo noise injection over the six input parameters plus 5-fold cross-validation. The six inputs—SFR, stellar mass, $M_{\mathrm{UV}}$, age, UV slope $\beta$, and $E(B-V)$—are derived by CIGALE SED fitting, with redshift fixed to spectroscopic or photometric values. The network's role is to replace single-parameter cuts (like a $\beta$ threshold) with a multivariate boundary; permutation feature importance then identifies $\beta$, $M_{\mathrm{UV}}$, and $M_*$ as the decisive drivers. For the reionization application, the same network is used to predict intrinsic Lyα emission before IGM attenuation, and the mismatch between predicted LAEs and observed Lyα detections is read as a signature of neutral gas outside the bubbles.

What would settle it

Take a spectroscopically observed sample of galaxies at 3<z<6 with stellar masses below $10^{9}$ Msun that demonstrably lack Lyα emission (for example from JWST/NIRSpec follow-up of photometrically selected star-forming galaxies) and run them through the network; if a substantial fraction receive P(LAE)>0.7, the claimed 14% false positive rate is violated for the low-mass regime and the Lyα fraction predictions for JWST galaxies are biased high.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a feedforward neural network with five hidden layers, trained on the VANDELS and MUSE spectroscopic samples, captures the nonlinear mapping between six SED-derived galaxy properties and the presence of Lyα emission well enough to serve as a photometric LAE classifier. At the operating point P(LAE)>0.7, the classifier reaches 77% completeness and 14% contamination in held-out test data, and the area under the ROC curve is 0.88. When applied to public JWST photometric catalogs, 91% of spectroscopically confirmed LAEs receive P(LAE)>0.7, and the model predicts an EW0>25 Å Lyα fraction whose redshift evolution matches published measurements. Applying the same classifier to reionization-era CEERS galaxies, the paper argues that comparing predicted intrinsic LAEs with observed Lyα detections favours separate moderate-sized ionized bubbles (R≲1 pMpc) over a single large bubble at z≈7.18 and z≈7.49.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping between the six physical properties and Lyα emission learned from VANDELS and MUSE remains valid for the fainter, lower-mass JWST galaxies and for galaxies at higher redshift, even though the training sample contains almost no low-mass non-LAEs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photometric surveys can be mined for Lyα emitters over a continuous redshift window without spectroscopy or narrowband filters, enabling large LAE samples at 3<z<6.
  • The predicted Lyα fraction, corrected to EW0>25 Å, reproduces the rise from z=3 to z=6 seen in previous work, validating the model for population statistics.
  • Applying the model to reionization-era galaxies and comparing with observed Lyα detections distinguishes intrinsic LAEs from IGM-attenuated ones, yielding constraints on ionized bubble size; the paper finds R≲1 pMpc bubbles at z≈7.18 and z≈7.49.
  • Spatial maps of predicted LAEs can be compared with non-LAE overdensities to test whether LAEs trace the underlying matter distribution in different redshift slices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the training bias toward low-mass LAEs is corrected with deeper surveys, the same architecture could yield accurate predictions for the faintest galaxies, where JWST now provides the needed non-LAE spectra.
  • The model's explicit finding that P(LAE) does not correlate with Lyα flux or EW suggests the network is learning a binarized escape condition rather than a quantitative transfer function; a regression head trained on the measured fluxes might recover EW information the current classifier throws away.
  • The 91% JWST match rate is partly a consequence of the JWST sample being low-mass and blue-$\beta$, exactly the regime where the training set has no non-LAEs; extending the test to mass-complete samples would sharpen the bubble-size inference.
  • Because the network inputs are SED-derived, systematic errors in SED fitting (e.g., photometric-redshift outliers) will propagate directly into P(LAE); tying the Monte-Carlo noise injection to full SED posterior draws rather than Gaussian parameter errors would make the probability output more reliable.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper trains a neural network to classify high-redshift galaxies as Lyα emitters (LAEs) or non-LAEs from six SED-derived properties (SFR, stellar mass, MUV, age, UV slope β, and E(B−V)). The training set combines 926 VANDELS galaxies (520 LAEs and 406 non-LAEs by visual inspection) and 507 MUSE galaxies (all LAEs, selected by line detection). At a probability threshold P(LAE)>0.7, the model reports 77% true positive rate and 14% false positive rate on a held-out test set, with AUC=0.88. The authors validate the model on independent samples: SC4K narrow-band LAEs and spectroscopically confirmed JWST LAEs (91% of the latter have P(LAE)>0.7). They apply the model to a JWST photometric sample to derive the Lyα fraction at 3<z<6, compare it with previous measurements after an EW>25 Å correction, and use predicted P(LAE) for spectroscopically observed galaxies at z≈7.1 and 7.5 to argue for moderate-size ionized bubbles (R≲1 pMpc) rather than a single large bubble.

Significance. If the method were robust across the mass range of interest, it would provide a practical way to construct large LAE samples from photometric data alone and to statistically correct Lyα fraction measurements for IGM attenuation during reionization. The paper has several strengths: it uses multiple independent validation samples (SC4K and JWST LAEs), it explicitly compares with a random-forest classifier and finds comparable performance, and it reports permutation feature importance with uncertainty. The 5-fold cross-validation and Monte Carlo noise injection are reasonable. However, the central application to the JWST sample is compromised by a known and acknowledged training-set bias: the absence of low-mass non-LAEs makes the model's output nearly deterministic in the very mass range where the JWST sample (median log M*=8.5) lies. The 91% JWST-LAE recovery is largely a restatement of this bias, and the mass-restricted success rate drops to 67%. The Lyα fraction and bubble-size conclusions therefore rest on extrapolations that are not independently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 2.5] The training set contains no low-mass non-LAEs: all MUSE galaxies are LAEs by construction and VANDELS is a magnitude-limited sample. The paper itself states (Sec. 3.3) that 'almost all of the galaxies with MUV > −19 or M* < 10^9 Msun are classified as LAEs with P(LAE)>0.9'. The JWST sample has median log(M*/Msun)=8.5, below the training median of 9.1 (Sec. 2.5). Consequently, the reported TPR/FPR and the model's predictions for the JWST sample are not validated in the regime where the model is actually applied. The 91% recovery of spectroscopically confirmed JWST LAEs is dominated by low-mass galaxies; for M*>10^9 Msun the success rate is 67% (12/18, Sec. 4.4.2). This is a load-bearing issue for the central application, and the authors should quantify the mass-dependent performance and either restrict the scientific conclusions to the validated mass range or construct a training set with low-mass non-LAEs (e.g., from deeper surveys) to demonstrate that the model's behavior is not an artifact of the missing class.
  2. [Sec. 4.4.3] The Lyα fraction comparison with previous studies applies a correction factor for the fraction of LAEs with EW0>25 Å measured from the training sample, with values 0.22 and 0.48 in the two MUV bins. This correction is applied to the model-predicted LAEs in the JWST sample, whose mass distribution differs markedly from the training sample. If the true EW>25 Å fraction depends on mass (as the paper's own MUV dependence suggests it may), then applying the training-sample ratio to a lower-mass population is not justified. The claim that 'the expected Lyα fraction X25_Lyα are consistent with the previous results' is therefore only as strong as the assumption that the correction is mass-independent within each MUV bin. The authors should derive the correction in mass-matched bins or explicitly test its sensitivity to the mass distribution of the predicted LAEs.
  3. [Sec. 4.4.5] The constraint on ionized bubble size at z≈7.18 and 7.49 interprets spectroscopically non-detected, low-mass galaxies with P(LAE)>0.9 as intrinsic LAEs whose Lyα is attenuated by the IGM, and then uses this to argue for moderate-size bubbles (R<1 pMpc) rather than a single large bubble. This interpretation assumes the model's predictions remain valid in the reionization-era galaxy population and in the low-mass regime. The paper acknowledges (Sec. 3.3) that the model assigns P(LAE)>0.9 to essentially all galaxies with MUV>−19 or M*<10^9 Msun, and a specific example used in the argument has M*=10^8.2 Msun and β=−2.4. This is precisely the regime where the model is unvalidated; the mass-restricted JWST validation (67% for M*>10^9) does not cover it. The bubble-size conclusion is load-bearing and should be re-evaluated, for example by showing that the conclusion is unchanged when using a conservative threshold that is calibrated on the mass range where the model has demonstrable predictive power, or by explicitly modeling the expected false-positive rate for low-mass blue non-LAEs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 / Fig. 6 caption] The caption defines 'TP, FN, TP, and TN' in the FPR/TPR formulas, which appears to be a typo for 'TP, FN, FP, and TN'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The flux calibration between VANDELS and MUSE uses only 25 objects and yields a median ratio of 0.55 with large scatter (16th–84th percentile 0.24–1.11). While this correction does not affect the binary LAE/non-LAE labels (which are based on visual inspection), it enters the EW>25 Å fraction used in Sec. 4.4.3; the large scatter should be propagated into that correction or discussed as a systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 4.4.2] The abstract states '91% of LAEs spectroscopically confirmed by JWST have a probability of LAE higher than 70%' but does not mention the mass-dependence of this success rate; the paper should qualify the statement to reflect the 67% rate for M*>10^9 Msun.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The permutation feature importance shows that SFR, E(B−V), and age are consistent with zero, but the paper correctly notes that correlated features can mask importance. This caveat is well placed, but the interpretation in Sec. 4.1 that 'age does not impact the model output' is stronger than the method supports given the large age uncertainties shown in Fig. 3.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Independent moderate-mass validation exists, but the headline 91% JWST recovery and the z>7 bubble-size inference are forced by the training set's lack of low-mass non-LAEs; the Lyα-fraction 'agreement' is a calibrated correction, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 2.5, Sec. 4.4.2]
    "This is because the training dataset does not include low-mass non-LAEs, so almost all of the galaxies with MUV > −19 or M∗ < 109 M⊙ are classified as LAEs. ... 62 (91%) out of 68 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs have P (LAE) higher than 0.7 ... While this high success rate might come from the fact that most of the JWST LAEs are low-mass galaxies, which bias the prediction model towards LAEs ... When limiting LAEs with M∗ > 109 M⊙, the prediction model shows 67% success rate (12 out of 18)."

    The mass dependence of P(LAE) is fit from a training set in which every low-mass galaxy is an LAE: VANDELS non-LAEs are absent below about 1e9 Msun, and MUSE galaxies are all LAEs by line selection. The JWST validation set has median log M* = 8.5, below the training median of 9.1, so its LAEs sit almost entirely in the regime where the model was forced to output P(LAE) > 0.9. The headline '91% of JWST LAEs have P(LAE) > 0.7' is therefore a restatement of the training-set label prior for low-mass objects, not an independent confirmation; the M* > 1e9 Msun subsample drops to 67%, close to the training TPR. The reported FPR (14%) is likewise measured only over the mass range where non-LAEs exist in the training sample.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 4.4.5]
    "We assume the relation between galaxy physical properties and the Ly α emission does not change with redshift, and our prediction model can predict whether galaxies in EoR intrinsically emit Ly α. ... one of them is predicted as LAEs with P (LAE) > 0.9 and would have been intrinsically Ly α emitting. While its stellar mass is low (10 8.2M⊙), it is reasonable that it is an intrinsic LAE given its UV slope β (−2.4). The lack of Lyα emission in the observed spectra is attributed to the high neutral fraction in the IGM."

    The 'intrinsic LAE' status of the non-detected galaxies is exactly the model's P(LAE) > 0.9 output. For low-mass blue galaxies (M* ~ 1e8.2 Msun, beta = −2.4), that output is forced by the training set's absence of low-mass non-LAEs (Sec. 3.3), not by an independently established intrinsic-emission relation. The inference chain — non-detection of Lyα in a model-predicted LAE implies IGM attenuation, hence separate moderate ionized bubbles rather than one large bubble — therefore reduces to the biased training prior. The explicit assumption that the z < 6 property–Lyα relation is redshift-invariant is an untested input, not a derived result.

full rationale

The core classifier is not wholly circular: it is trained on held-out VANDELS data with real non-LAE labels at moderate masses, and it reproduces SC4K LAE selection at 72% TPR. Independent content also exists in the M* > 1e9 Msun JWST subsample (67% success), which is comparable to the training TPR and not trivially forced. However, two load-bearing uses of the model reduce to the training-set construction. First, the headline 91% JWST validation is statistically forced because the training set contains no low-mass non-LAEs and the JWST LAEs are predominantly low-mass; the paper itself concedes this and notes the mass-limited success rate drops to 67%. Second, the z > 7 bubble-size argument treats the model's P(LAE) > 0.9 as evidence of intrinsic Lyα emission for non-detected low-mass blue galaxies, but that high P(LAE) is itself a training-prior artifact; the conclusion about separate moderate ionized bubbles rather than one large bubble therefore rests on the same biased prior. The Lyα-fraction 'consistency with previous studies' (Sec. 4.4.3) is achieved only after multiplying model predictions by EW0 > 25 Å fractions measured from the training sample, making it a calibrated consistency check rather than an independent prediction. These are partial circularities in the applications, not a collapse of the entire derivation, so the score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality of SED-derived inputs and the representativeness of the training sample. The only numbers fit to data that directly affect the headline results are the MUSE flux correction, the P(LAE) threshold, and the EW>25 A correction fractions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • LAE probability threshold = 0.7
    All LAE selections use P(LAE)>0.7; changing this threshold changes TPR/FPR and all downstream results.
  • MUSE Ly-alpha flux correction factor = 0.55
    Median ratio of Ly-alpha flux between 25 VANDELS/MUSE overlap objects; applied to all MUSE flux and EW measurements.
  • EW>25 A fraction correction = 0.22 (bright bin), 0.48 (faint bin)
    Ratio of LAEs with EW0>25 A among training LAEs, used to convert predicted Ly-alpha fraction to the EW-limited definition used in previous studies.
  • Neural network hyperparameters = 5 hidden layers, 64 nodes, dropout 0.25, learning rate 0.001
    Selected by testing different architectures; not derived from theory.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CIGALE SED fitting assumptions (BC03 SSP, Chabrier IMF, tau-model SFH, Calzetti extinction) yield reliable physical properties.
    All six input parameters come from SED fitting; if these assumptions are wrong, the inputs are biased.
  • domain assumption The relation between galaxy physical properties and intrinsic Ly-alpha emission is redshift-invariant beyond z=6.
    Section 4.4.5 assumes this to predict intrinsic LAEs at z>7 and infer ionized bubble sizes.
  • domain assumption Visual inspection correctly labels LAEs vs non-LAEs in the training data.
    Labels are the ground truth for training; errors propagate to the model.
  • domain assumption At 3<z<6, IGM attenuation of Ly-alpha is negligible.
    Section 2.1 assumes post-reionization IGM is transparent so observed Ly-alpha reflects intrinsic emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Distant Galaxies with Neural Network Architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZD37HIY

@misc{pith2026241214676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Distant Galaxies with Neural Network Architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZD37HIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14676}
}
abstract

The Ly$\alpha$ emission line is a characteristic feature found in high-$z$ galaxies, serving as a probe of cosmic reionization. While previous works present various correlations between Ly$\alpha$ emission and physical properties of host galaxies, it is still unclear which characteristics predominantly determine the Ly$\alpha$ emission. In this study, we introduce a neural network approach to simultaneously handle multiple properties of galaxies. The neural-network-based prediction model that identifies Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) from six physical properties: star formation rate (SFR), stellar mass, UV absolute magnitude $M_\mathrm{UV}$, age, UV slope $\beta$, and dust attenuation $E(B-V)$, obtained by the SED fitting. The network is trained with galaxy samples from the VANDELS and MUSE spectroscopic surveys and achieves the performance of 77% true positive rate and 14% false positive rate. The permutation feature importance method shows that $\beta$, $M_\mathrm{UV}$, and $M_*$ are important for the prediction of LAEs. As an independent validation, we find that 91% of LAEs spectroscopically confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have a probability of LAE higher than 70% in this model. This prediction model enables the efficient construction of a large LAE sample in a wide and continuous redshift space using only photometric data. We apply the prediction model to the JWST photometric galaxy sample and obtain Ly$\alpha$ fraction consistent with previous studies. Moreover, we demonstrate that the difference between the distributions of LAEs predicted by the model and the spectroscopically identified LAEs provides a strong constraint on the HII bubble size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The relation between the redshift and MUV of galaxies of VANDELS (blue) and MUSE (orange). MUV is calculated using SED fitting (see Sec.2.3). et al. 2024). The overwhelming increase in the number of LAEs predicted by the network will allow us to explore the evolution of the neutral fraction and the structure of reion￾ization. This paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 describes the observational data and their anal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of six physical properties (β, E(B − V ), SFR, MUV, M∗, and age). Blue, orange, and green histograms show non-LAEs from VANDELS, LAEs from VANDELS, and LAEs from MUSE, respectively. Galaxies taken from MUSE are all classified as LAEs because MUSE catalog selects objects based on line detections. MNRAS 000, 1–16 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relation between the EW0 of Lyα and six physical properties (β, E(B − V ), SFR, MUV, M∗, and age). Colors are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relation between the output probability of P(LAE) and the six input parameters for VANDELS LAEs (orange), MUSE LAEs (green), and non-LAEs (blue). 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 P(LAE) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Normalized Count non-LAE LAE (VANDELS+MUSE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of output probability of P(LAE) for LAEs (orange), and non-LAEs (blue). tropy loss. Training proceeds with a maximum of 400 epochs, but it ends at the point that gives the minimum validation loss to avoid overfitting. During the training, we employ 5-f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ROC curve of the trained model. True Posi￾tive Rate (TPR) and False Positive Rate (FPR) are defined as TPR = TP/(TP + FN) and FPR = FP/(TN + FP), where TP, FN, TP, and TN are true positive, false negative, true positive, and true negative, respectively. The value a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of P(LAE) for COSMOS2020 (blue) and SC4K (orange) inferred by the prediction model. but otherwise, Lyα photons are scattered by a neutral cloud (Smith et al. 2019). Galaxies with the most pronounced Lyα emission generally have the smallest Lyα velocity…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relation between the six parameters and P(LAE) inferred by the prediction model for all JWST galaxies (blue) and spectroscopically confirmed LAEs (orange) in the JWST fields. can detect LAEs in a wide redshift range continuously. There seem to be gaps in the distri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The redshift evolution of Lyα fraction for −21.75 < MUV < −20.25 (left) and −20.25 < MUV < −18.75 (right). Blue points are calculated from LAEs selected with P(LAE) > 0.7 from JWST galaxies. Orange points indicate the fraction of LAEs with EW0 > 25 ˚A for JWST sources…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel shows the 3D distribution of LAEs detected by the prediction model in the CEERS field. The grey shaded region indicates the redshift slices of 3.0 < z < 3.5 and 4.5 < z < 5.0, where the density distribution of LAEs and non-LAEs are shown in the bottom panels…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The distribution of spectroscopically confirmed galaxies around the expected ionized regions. The filled and open circles show galaxies with detected Lyα emission and not detected in their spectra, respectively. The circles are coloured with the value of P(LAE). The b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Altmann A., Toloşi L., Sander O., Lengauer T., 2010, @doi [Bioinformatics] 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134 , 26, 1340

    doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134 2010

  2. [2]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1807A 495, 1807

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1196 2020

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [5]

    Bacon R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A...1B 608, A1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 2017

  6. [6]

    Bacon R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A...4B 670, A4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 2023

  7. [7]

    Begley R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4040B 527, 4040

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3417 2024

  8. [8]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4061B 456, 4061

    Bielby R. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4061B 456, 4061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2914 2016

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Bolan P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3263B 517, 3263

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Bolan P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.2998B 531, 2998

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Brammer G., 2023, grizli , Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1146904

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2003

  7. [15]

    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

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    Cassata P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..24C 573, A24

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..110C 952, 110

    Ch \'a vez Ortiz \'O . A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..110C 952, 110

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Mason C., Topping M

    Chen Z., Stark D. P., Mason C., Topping M. W., Whitler L., Tang M., Endsley R., Charlot S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7052C 528, 7052

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Chollet F., et al., 2015, Keras, https://keras.io

    2015

  13. [21]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20720.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1425C 422, 1425

    2012

  14. [22]

    Developers T., 2023, TensorFlow , Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4724125

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal

    Dunlop J. S., et al., 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1837

    2021

  16. [24]

    L., Rhoads J

    Finkelstein S. L., Rhoads J. E., Malhotra S., Grogin N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691..465F 691, 465

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..13F 946, L13

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Foran G., Cooke J., Reddy N., Steidel C., Shapley A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2023.48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...52F 40, e052

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Fuller S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab959f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..156F 896, 156

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Garilli B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.150G 647, A150

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Gazagnes S., Chisholm J., Schaerer D., Verhamme A., Izotov Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..85G 639, A85

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Goovaerts I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.174G 678, A174

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Guo Y., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..207...24G 207, 24

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Runnholm A., Scarlata C., Gronke M., Rivera-Thorsen T

    Hayes M. J., Runnholm A., Scarlata C., Gronke M., Rivera-Thorsen T. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5903H 520, 5903

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..12H 606, A12

    Herenz E. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..12H 606, A12

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Hoag A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488..706H 488, 706

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Iani E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad15f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963...97I 963, 97

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Inami H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A...2I 608, A2

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Ito K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916...35I 916, 35

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.238J 683, A238

    Jones G. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.238J 683, A238

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    arXiv:2212.09850

    Jung I., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2212.09850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221209850J p. arXiv:2212.09850

    2022 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Jung I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...73J 967, 73

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Kerutt J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A.183K 659, A183

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..555K 489, 555

    Khostovan A. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..555K 489, 555

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Ba J., 2014, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1412.6980K p

    Kingma D. P., Ba J., 2014, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1412.6980K p. arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    pp 87--90, @doi 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver T., et al., 2016, in , IOS Press. pp 87--90, @doi 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Kusakabe H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A..12K 638, A12

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Steidel C

    Law D. R., Steidel C. C., Shapley A. E., Nagy S. R., Reddy N. A., Erb D. K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...29L 759, 29

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3662L 504, 3662

    Lemaux B. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3662L 504, 3662

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Maji M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A..66M 663, A66

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Finkelstein S

    Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., Finkelstein S. L., Hathi N., Nilsson K., McLinden E., Pirzkal N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750L..36M 750, L36

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Marchi F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..11M 614, A11

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936..131M 936, 131

    McCarron A. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936..131M 936, 131

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    McLure R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Momose R., Shimasaku K., Nagamine K., Shimizu I., Kashikawa N., Ando M., Kusakabe H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abf04c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912L..24M 912, L24

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Nakajima K., Ouchi M., Isobe Y., Harikane Y., Zhang Y., Ono Y., Umeda H., Oguri M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..269...33N 269, 33

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Napolitano L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A.138N 677, A138

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Napolitano L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.106N 688, A106

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2864O 525, 2864

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  53. [61]

    Ono Y., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744...83O 744, 83

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    Ouchi M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723..869O 723, 869

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    B., Peebles P

    Partridge R. B., Peebles P. J. E., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...147..868P 147, 868

    1967 doi

  56. [64]

    Paulino-Afonso A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.5479P 476, 5479

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Pedregosa F., et al., 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  58. [66]

    Pentericci L., Grazian A., Fontana A., Castellano M., Giallongo E., Salimbeni S., Santini P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..553P 494, 553

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    Pentericci L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A.174P 616, A174

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Dey A., Juneau S., Lee K.-S., Prescott M

    Pucha R., Reddy N. A., Dey A., Juneau S., Lee K.-S., Prescott M. K. M., Shivaei I., Hong S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac83a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..159P 164, 159

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Rafelski M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...31R 150, 31

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    arXiv:2007.01322

    Ribeiro B., et al., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2007.01322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200701322R p. arXiv:2007.01322

    2020 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    Runnholm A., Hayes M., Melinder J., Rivera-Thorsen E., \"O stlin G., Cannon J., Kunth D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...48R 892, 48

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Santos S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..141S 493, 141

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Saxena A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..84S 684, A84

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Ellis R

    Schenker M. A., Ellis R. S., Konidaris N. P., Stark D. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...20S 795, 20

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..80S 654, A80

    Schmidt K. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..80S 654, A80

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    E., Steidel C

    Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Dickinson M., Giavalisco M., Pettini M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...562...95S 562, 95

    2001 doi

  69. [77]

    Shibuya T., Ouchi M., Harikane Y., Nakajima K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..164S 871, 164

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    Shimakawa R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468L..21S 468, L21

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    Skelton R. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    L., Hopkins P

    Smith A., Ma X., Bromm V., Finkelstein S. L., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484...39S 484, 39

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    A., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty378 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4725S 476, 4725

    Sobral D., Santos S., Matthee J., Paulino-Afonso A., Ribeiro B., Calhau J., Khostovan A. A., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty378 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4725S 476, 4725

    doi

  74. [82]

    Sobral D., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2817S 477, 2817

    doi

  75. [83]

    P., Ellis R

    Stark D. P., Ellis R. S., Ouchi M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/728/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728L...2S 728, L2

    2011 doi

  76. [84]

    Talia M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..25T 678, A25

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    Tang M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.2701T 531, 2701

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    The pandas development Team 2023, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    Tilvi V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794....5T 794, 5

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    F., Strom A

    Trainor R. F., Strom A. L., Steidel C. C., Rudie G. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..171T 832, 171

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5624U 528, 5624

    Urbano Stawinski S. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5624U 528, 5624

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Urrutia T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.141U 624, A141

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    Weaver J. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...11W 258, 11

    2022 doi

  85. [93]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    W es M c K inney 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  86. [94]

    C., et al., 2021, UDF medium band survey: Using H-alpha emission to reconstruct Ly-alpha escape during the Epoch of Reionization , JWST Proposal

    Williams C. C., et al., 2021, UDF medium band survey: Using H-alpha emission to reconstruct Ly-alpha escape during the Epoch of Reionization , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1963

    2021

  87. [95]

    Witstok J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..40W 682, A40

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    Yoshioka T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4b5d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...32Y 927, 32

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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