Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Mapping Galaxy Images Across Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared Bands Using Generative Deep Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a supervised generative image-to-image network can reliably translate galaxy observations between ultraviolet, visible, and infrared photometric bands, demonstrating the mapping on simulated Illustris galaxies and…

desk verdict Solid mock-data proof of concept for galaxy band translation, but the real-data carryover claim is untested and the paper needs baselines and error bars before its broad conclusion is warranted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15149 v1 pith:QY7LF6PX submitted 2025-01-25 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GAcs.AI

Youssef Zaazou , Alex Bihlo , Terrence S. Tricco This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GAcs.AI
keywords AstronomydatamodelingConvolutionalneuralnetworksImage-to-imagetranslationGalaxyphotometryIllustrissimulationsDECaLSsurveymorphologyGenerativedeeplearning
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 argues that a generative convolutional network can synthesize a galaxy image in one photometric band from images taken in other bands, effectively translating observations across ultraviolet, optical, and infrared light. The authors train a supervised ResNet-style generator on paired galaxy images from the Illustris simulations and report near-identical reconstructions for both interpolation (NUV and K inputs producing G, R, and Z bands) and extrapolation (G and R inputs producing U, NUV, and FUV bands). They also train the same architecture on real DECaLS images to recover the R band from G and Z band inputs, with somewhat lower but still high similarity scores. If the approach holds, astronomers could fill missing multi-band coverage, prioritize follow-up observations, and plan missions using synthesized images.

What carries the argument

The central object is a supervised generative convolutional network whose generator follows the CycleGAN generator design with a ResNet backbone, modified to use one downsampling and one upsampling block plus nine residual blocks to preserve high-frequency structure such as spiral arms and bars. It is trained with the compound loss $L = L_1 + \lambda(1 - \mathrm{SSIM})$, combining per-pixel mean absolute error with a structural similarity term that penalizes mismatches in local image structure. Paired, perfectly aligned Illustris mock images spanning FUV to K bands supply the training signal, while GINI and M20 morphology statistics, compared through the first Wasserstein distance, verify that generated images reproduce physical galaxy morphology rather than only low-level pixel statistics.

What would settle it

Take a model trained on Illustris mock pairs (for example, G and R inputs predicting NUV, or NUV and K inputs predicting R) and apply it without retraining to real galaxy images with matching coordinates, then compare the outputs against actual observations in the target band; if SSIM falls to roughly the level of the input bands' similarity to the target or the GINI/M20 distributions diverge substantially, the transfer claim collapses. A complementary test would be to train on DECaLS and extrapolate to a far-removed band such as FUV, comparing against existing GALEX imaging in the same fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A supervised image-to-image model with a ResNet-like generator and a combined L1 plus SSIM loss learns to map galaxy images between photometric bands, performing both interpolation and extrapolation with a single architecture that is retrained for each input-output band combination. On Illustris mock observations, the generated images match ground truth with MAE below 1.3%, SSIM between 0.91 and 0.99, PSNR between 28 and 40 dB, and GINI and M20 distributions close to the targets as measured by Wasserstein distance. On real DECaLS data, interpolating the R band from G and Z inputs yields SSIM 0.86, PSNR 30.5 dB, and similar morphological agreement. The authors interpret these results as a proof of concept that missing photometric bands of galaxies can be generated from partial observations.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the idealized, noise-free Illustris mock images are representative enough of real survey conditions that the high-fidelity translations demonstrated on them carry over to real galaxies, but this transfer from mock to observed data is asserted rather than directly tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-band galaxy information can be synthesized from partial observations, potentially augmenting surveys that lack coverage in certain wavelength ranges.
  • Band extrapolation, such as predicting ultraviolet images from optical inputs, could extend existing datasets into wavelengths that were never observed for a given galaxy.
  • The same model architecture applies to any input-to-output band combination with only retraining, so the method is agnostic to whether the task is interpolation or extrapolation.
  • Real survey data can serve as training material for the model, with noise and background artifacts degrading fidelity only modestly compared with clean simulations.
  • Reliable band-to-band translation could support mission planning and guide high-resolution follow-up observations by predicting structures not resolved in available data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves untested whether an Illustris-trained model transfers directly to real galaxies; its real-data experiment retrains the model on DECaLS, so the claimed carry-over of simulation success to observations is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
  • Because Illustris pairs are noiseless and perfectly aligned, simulation metrics likely overstate the fidelity achievable on real data for wide-band translations; the DECaLS result uses closely spaced bands and does not yet test UV-to-IR extrapolation on observations.
  • A natural stronger test would be to predict ultraviolet bands from real optical survey images and compare against existing GALEX observations in matched fields, which would directly measure real-world extrapolation performance.
  • If the method scales to large photometric surveys, it could also serve as a cross-survey consistency check, since a failure to translate between bands would flag calibration or registration discrepancies between datasets.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a supervised image-to-image CNN, based on a ResNet/CycleGAN-style generator, trained with an L1 plus inverse-SSIM loss, to translate galaxy images between photometric bands. Using paired Illustris mock observations, the authors train interpolation models (NUV, K to G, R, Z) and extrapolation models (G, R to U, NUV, FUV), reporting MAE, SSIM, PSNR, and Wasserstein distances between GINI/M20 distributions. A separate model is trained on DECaLS G and Z inputs to predict R. The paper claims high-fidelity band translation and potential for augmenting multi-band datasets, with code publicly available.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is a useful proof of concept for using mock observations to prototype band-to-band translation and for augmenting sparse multi-band coverage. Strengths include held-out validation sets, the use of morphology metrics (GINI/M20) that are not part of the training loss, a clear architecture description, and public code. The main limitation is that the real-data demonstration is a narrow same-survey optical interpolation, so the broad UV/IR real-data claim in the abstract is not directly supported by the experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, contribution (iii); Abstract] The statement that Illustris successes "carry over into observed datasets" is not tested. Section 3.3 trains a fresh model on DECaLS G and Z inputs; no Illustris-trained model is applied to real observations. Moreover, the DECaLS experiment interpolates R from closely spaced optical bands within a single survey, so it does not exercise UV or IR translation under real noise, PSF, astrometric, or calibration conditions. The future-work paragraph acknowledges "noise variability and calibration differences across surveys" as open limitations. Please either add a transfer/fine-tuning experiment that directly tests cross-survey generalization, or temper the claim to separate mock-based feasibility from the narrow real-data interpolation.
  2. [Tables 2, 3, and 4] All reported metrics are point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated runs. Given that training is stochastic and the validation sets are 500 (Illustris) and 2000 (DECaLS) images, differences such as SSIM 0.986 (Table 2, R) versus 0.99 (Table 3, U) may not be meaningful. Add uncertainty quantification (multiple seeds or bootstrap resampling) or at least report the spread over validation folds.
  3. [Section 2.2] The description of M20 as "the relative contribution of the brightest 20 percent of a galaxy's light to its overall light distribution" is inaccurate; M20 is the normalized second moment of the brightest 20% of the light, not a flux fraction. The paper also does not specify how GINI and M20 are computed (e.g., segmentation, aperture, pixel selection) or how the global normalization bounds for the [0,1] scaling were chosen. Since the W1 distances are the only morphology validation, these details are needed to assess whether the small values are meaningful.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Figures 2, 4, 6] The GINI/M20 comparison is made only at the level of marginal distributions. Because the task is per-image translation, the paper should also report per-object GINI/M20 errors or a scatter/correlation plot between ground-truth and generated values; distribution-level agreement can hide systematic per-galaxy biases.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2.1.1] The telescope name "GALAX" should be "GALEX" (Galaxy Evolution Explorer), both in the table caption and in the text.
  2. [Section 2.2] There are typographical errors: "GINI coffecient" should be "Gini coefficient" and "earth movers distance" should be "Earth mover's distance".
  3. [Section 3.3] The sentence "As given in Table (2), the W1 distances..." refers to DECaLS values that appear in Table 4, not Table 2.
  4. [Section 2.4 and Tables 2-4] The column header "λeff" is never defined; clarify what effective lambda means and how it relates to λ in Eq. (2).
  5. [Appendix A.1] Specify the train/validation split procedure, including whether the split is random and whether galaxies are guaranteed not to appear in both training and validation sets.
  6. [Introduction and Results] The paper would benefit from a baseline comparison (e.g., linear interpolation between input bands or a simpler U-Net) to quantify the added value of the proposed architecture; currently the improvements over the input bands are shown, but not over a baseline model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the band-translation results are genuine held-out predictions, with a minor caveat that the headline MAE and SSIM metrics are components of the training objective.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4 (Eqs. 1-2), Section 2.2, and Tables 2-4 in Section 3.]
    "Our loss function is the combination of the L1 (mean absolute) error and the inverse SSIM loss given by, LSSIM = 1 − SSIM(Y, Yˆ), (1)... The full objective to be minimized during training is L = L1 + λLSSIM, (2)... This loss function was determined through a series of trial and error."

    The two primary fidelity metrics, MAE and SSIM (Tables 2-4), are by definition the two terms of the training objective (Eq. 2: L = L1 + λL_SSIM). The model is trained to minimize exactly these quantities, and the hyperparameters (λ = 1, architecture, 128 epochs) were selected via trial and error on the validation set. Reporting the validation MAE (below 1.3 percent) and SSIM (0.91 to 0.99) as evidence of high fidelity therefore partly reports the value of the optimized objective on the model-selection set, not an independently predicted quantity. This is only a partial overlap: evaluation is on a held-out validation split, the paper compares against input-band SSIM baselines (0.38 to 0.86), and the GINI and M20 morphology metrics are not part of the loss and give independent support.

full rationale

No self-definitional steps, no load-bearing self-citations (the paper cites no prior work by its own authors), no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation: the architecture is externally attributed to CycleGAN (Zhu et al. 2017) and modified openly. The Illustris-to-DECaLS carry-over claim in Section 4 (iii) is an untested premise rather than a circular one: the DECaLS model is trained fresh on real G and Z data, so no Illustris-trained model is transferred, and the wide-band UV and IR claim rests on mocks. That is a missing-evidence and correctness concern, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The one genuine overlap is that MAE and SSIM are simultaneously the training objective (Eq. 2) and the headline success metrics; because the same validation set guided loss and architecture choices, those numbers are partially self-referential. However, the GINI and M20 Wasserstein distances are external to the loss, the SSIM input-versus-output baselines show the model adds value beyond copying an input band, and PSNR is not a loss term. These independent checks keep the finding in the 0 to 2 range: score 2 for the partial loss and metric overlap.

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

The central result is an empirical machine-learning demonstration, so the ledger contains no invented physical entities and no physical free parameters. The free parameters are modeling choices: the SSIM loss weight lambda=1, the generator architecture shape, the 128x128 resolution and dataset splits, and the GINI/M20 normalization bounds used for W1. The axioms are domain assumptions about the faithfulness of Illustris paired images, the determinism of the band-to-band mapping, the representativeness of the validation split, and the sufficiency of GINI and M20 as morphology checks. None of these are controversial, but none are independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • SSIM loss weight lambda = 1
    Equation (2); set to 1 after trial and error, with lambda=0 giving lower quality. It controls the balance of the training objective and affects SSIM and MAE evaluation.
  • Generator bottleneck shape = 1 down-sampling, 1 up-sampling, 9 residual blocks
    Changed from CycleGAN defaults after hyperparameter tuning to preserve high-frequency features; selected on validation data.
  • Image resolution and dataset split sizes = 128x128; 2000/500 Illustris; 8000/2000 DECaLS
    Chosen by hand in Appendix A.1; affects training difficulty and reported metric values.
  • GINI/M20 normalization bounds = global min/max not stated
    Used to scale morphology metrics to [0,1] for Wasserstein distance; different bounds would change reported W1 values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Paired Illustris mock observations are physically faithful, aligned, noise-free views of the same galaxies in multiple bands
    Supervised training and validation assume these pairs are correct ground truths; Section 2.1.1.
  • domain assumption The mapping from input photometric bands to a target band is essentially deterministic for a galaxy
    The supervised L1 plus SSIM objective presupposes a stable input-to-target relationship; Section 2.4.
  • standard math No dataset leakage and a representative validation split
    Hyperparameters were tuned and metrics reported without describing an independent test set or seed; Appendix A.
  • domain assumption GINI and M20 distribution agreement is sufficient evidence of morphological fidelity
    Used to conclude outputs are natural and free of spurious effects; Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping Galaxy Images Across Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared Bands Using Generative Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QY7LF6PX

@misc{pith2026250115149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping Galaxy Images Across Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared Bands Using Generative Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QY7LF6PX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15149}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that generative deep learning can translate galaxy observations across ultraviolet, visible, and infrared photometric bands. Leveraging mock observations from the Illustris simulations, we develop and validate a supervised image-to-image model capable of performing both band interpolation and extrapolation. The resulting trained models exhibit high fidelity in generating outputs, as verified by both general image comparison metrics (MAE, SSIM, PSNR) and specialized astronomical metrics (GINI coefficient, M20). Moreover, we show that our model can be used to predict real-world observations, using data from the DECaLS survey as a case study. These findings highlight the potential of generative learning to augment astronomical datasets, enabling efficient exploration of multi-band information in regions where observations are incomplete. This work opens new pathways for optimizing mission planning, guiding high-resolution follow-ups, and enhancing our understanding of galaxy morphology and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The results for our three trained interpolation models; each column is reserved for a single galaxy. The NUV inputs and the K inputs (XNUV and XK) are delineated by the G, R, and Z groupings (one for each model).The first row of each grouping shows the ground truth labels, the second shows the respective generated images while the last row is the residual taken to be the ground truth label minus the model output [P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure shows the distributions of the GINI and M20 values for each of the three interpolation models alongside the input data’s distributions for reference. We note significant agreement in the ground truth and generated distributions particularly for the M20 measurement. While the GINI coefficient distributions are not perfectly aligned, they still indicate a successful transformation especially when taken in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results for our three trained extrapolation models; each column is reserved for a single galaxy. The R inputs and the G inputs (XR and XG) precede the U, NUV , and F UV groupings (one for each model). The first row of each grouping shows the ground truth labels, the second shows the respective generated images while the last row is the residual taken to be the ground truth label minus the model output [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the distributions of the GINI and M20 values for each of the three extrapolation models alongside the input data’s distributions for reference. We note significant agreement in the ground truth and generated distributions particularly for the M20 meas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results for our DECaLS model; each column is reserved for a single galaxy. The G and Z inputs (XG and XZ ) are delineated by the R grouping the first row of which shows the ground truth labels, the second shows the respective generated images while the last row is …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure shows the distributions of the GINI and M20 values for the DECaLS interpolation model with the input distributions for reference. Experiments with Illustris-trained models performed band interpolation to G, R and Z bands using K and NUV bands as inputs, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AGN contribution on the morphological parameters of their host galaxies up to intermediate redshifts of z~2

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Simulated AGN contamination at COSMOS-like depths shows the Gini coefficient is the most robust morphology measure up to z~2, with concentration parameters shifting significantly above 25% AGN fraction and magnitude 23.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ali, P. J. M., Faraj, R. H., Koya, E., Ali, P. J. M., & Faraj, R. H. 2014, Mach Learn Tech Rep, 1, 1

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Bessell, M. S. 2005, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 43, 293

    2005

  3. [3]

    R., & Wang, Z

    Brunet, D., Vrscay, E. R., & Wang, Z. 2011, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21, 1488 De La Calleja, J., & Fuentes, O. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 87

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 168

    2019

  5. [5]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07285

    Dumoulin, V., & Visin, F. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07285

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03206, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03206

    Esser, P., Kulal, S., Blattmann, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03206, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03206

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03206 2024

  7. [7]

    J., & Jacobs, C

    Fluke, C. J., & Jacobs, C. 2019, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10, doi: 10.1002/widm.1349

    doi:10.1002/widm.1349 2019

  8. [8]

    A., Ecker, A

    Gatys, L. A., Ecker, A. S., & Bethge, M. 2016, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2016

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Communications of the ACM, 63, 139 15

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., et al. 2020, Communications of the ACM, 63, 139 15

    2020

  2. [10]

    2016, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770–778

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2016, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770–778

    2016

  3. [11]

    2020, Advances in neural information processing systems, 33, 6840

    Ho, J., Jain, A., & Abbeel, P. 2020, Advances in neural information processing systems, 33, 6840

    2020

  4. [12]

    Isola, P., Zhu, J.-Y., Zhou, T., & Efros, A. A. 2017, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1125–1134

    2017

  5. [13]

    2024, Sensors, 24, 1151

    Kinakh, V., Belousov, Y., Qu´ etant, G., et al. 2024, Sensors, 24, 1151

    2024

  6. [14]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A16

    Svoboda, J. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A16

    2023

  7. [15]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3217

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, in 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 5634–5641, doi: 10.1109/ICPR48806.2021.9412143

    Lin, Q., Fouchez, D., & Pasquet, J. 2021, in 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 5634–5641, doi: 10.1109/ICPR48806.2021.9412143

    2021

  9. [17]

    Liu, T., Quan, Y., Su, Y., et al. 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    2015, in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3431–3440, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298965

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., & Darrell, T. 2015, in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3431–3440, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298965

    2015

  11. [19]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 163

    2004

  12. [20]

    H., Gunn, J

    Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., & Szalay, A. S. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 118, 1406

    1999

  13. [21]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, L1

    2005

  14. [22]

    2021, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24, 3859

    Pang, Y., Lin, J., Qin, T., & Chen, Z. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24, 3859

    2021

  15. [23]

    2020, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1890–1898

    Quan, Y., Chen, M., Pang, T., & Ji, H. 2020, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1890–1898

    2020

  16. [24]

    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., & Guibas, L. J. 2000, International journal of computer vision, 40, 99

    2000

  17. [25]

    2022, in ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings, 1–10

    Saharia, C., Chan, W., Chang, H., et al. 2022, in ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings, 1–10

    2022

  18. [26]

    2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

    Skrutskie, M., Cutri, R., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

    2006

  19. [27]

    J., Geach, J

    Smith, M. J., Geach, J. E., Jackson, R. A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1808

    2022

  20. [28]

    E., & Smith, M

    Spindler, A., Geach, J. E., & Smith, M. J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 985

    2021

  21. [29]

    F., Vogelsberger, M., et al

    Torrey, P., Snyder, G. F., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2753 Van den Bergh, S. 1998, Galaxy morphology and classification (Cambridge University Press)

    2015

  22. [30]

    2014, Nature, 509, 177

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 177

    2014

  23. [31]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3204–3215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3567

    Vojtekova, A., Lieu, M., Valtchanov, I., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3204–3215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3567

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2835

    2013

  25. [33]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J. E., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579

    2000

  26. [34]

    2015, Data Science Journal, 14, 11

    Zhang, Y., & Zhao, Y. 2015, Data Science Journal, 14, 11

    2015

  27. [35]

    Zhu, J.-Y., Park, T., Isola, P., & Efros, A. A. 2017, in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2223–2232

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.