pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06318 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Introducing sapphire: Towards Hybrid Physics-Informed, Data-Driven Modeling of Galaxy Formation

Viraj Pandya , Greg L. Bryan , T. Lucas Makinen , Austen Gabrielpillai , Christopher Carr , Drummond B. Fielding , Lars Hernquist , Matthew Ho
show 13 more authors
Kartheik Iyer Christian Kragh Jespersen Sophie Koudmani Marta Laska Pablo Lemos Christopher C. Lovell Lucia A. Perez William F. Robinson Jr. Rachel S. Somerville Tjitske K. Starkenburg Richard Stiskalek Bryan Terrazas G. Mark Voit
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords semi-analytic modelsgalaxy formationautomatic differentiationJacobian matricesfeedback mechanismsparameter inferencestellar-to-halo mass relationstar formation regulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new automatically differentiable semi-analytic model computes exact Jacobians of galaxy evolution equations and infers that preventative feedback primarily regulates star formation.

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

The paper presents a semi-analytic model built from scratch in JAX that supports automatic differentiation for galaxy population evolution equations. This setup allows computation of exact Jacobian matrices, which turn out to have interpretable non-random structures rather than arbitrary ones. Local and global sensitivity analyses identify supernova energy loading as a controlling astrophysical parameter. Mock recovery tests show that the stellar-to-halo-mass relation at the present day supplies too little information by itself to pin down many parameters. When additional data on gas fractions and metallicities are included, the inferred values point to galaxies regulating star formation mainly by preventing gas from turning into stars instead of ejecting it afterward.

Core claim

The central discovery is that exact Jacobian matrices of the nonlinear differential equations in the galaxy formation model exhibit interpretable, non-random structures, and that comprehensive parameter inference from observational data indicates galaxies primarily self-regulate their star formation through preventative feedback rather than ejective feedback.

What carries the argument

The automatically differentiable semi-analytic model framework that enables exact computation of Jacobian matrices for sensitivity analysis and parameter inference via gradient descent and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo.

If this is right

  • The stellar-to-halo-mass relation at z=0 alone does not contain enough information to constrain many astrophysical parameters.
  • Supernova energy loading emerges as a key astrophysical parameter controlling galaxy evolution.
  • Gradient descent and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods enable comprehensive mock parameter recovery and real data inference.
  • Fisher and HMC forecasts indicate the framework can support precision inference of galaxy formation parameters with suitable data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The modular structure could support swapping in different physical prescriptions to test their impact on inferred feedback modes.
  • The exact Jacobians open a route to hybrid models that blend the differential equations with machine-learned corrections for missing processes.
  • Similar Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis could be applied to other sets of nonlinear equations describing cosmic structure formation.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen combination of observational data on stellar masses, gas fractions, and metallicities together with the specific physical model is sufficient to distinguish between preventative and ejective feedback without major systematic biases.

What would settle it

An expanded dataset that includes star formation rates at higher redshifts and strongly favors ejective feedback parameters over preventative ones would contradict the inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06318 by Austen Gabrielpillai, Bryan Terrazas, Christian Kragh Jespersen, Christopher Carr, Christopher C. Lovell, Drummond B. Fielding, G. Mark Voit, Greg L. Bryan, Kartheik Iyer, Lars Hernquist, Lucia A. Perez, Marta Laska, Matthew Ho, Pablo Lemos, Rachel S. Somerville, Richard Stiskalek, Sophie Koudmani, Tjitske K. Starkenburg, T. Lucas Makinen, Viraj Pandya, William F. Robinson Jr..

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic overview of sapphire. The innermost boxes with solid black borders list the five universal ingredients of any dynamical system: state variables ⃗x, evolution equations ⃗f, free parameters ⃗θ, initial conditions ⃗x0 and forcing functions ⃗g. We built sapphire to be differentiable so that we can add small, interpretable neural networks ⃗fNN to correct model mis-specification (dotted black border). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: serves as an outline for this section and sum￾marizes our essential modeling steps. After fixing our choice of numerics (Appendix B) and cosmology (sub￾section 3.3), we draw astrophysical parameters from priors7 , evolve an ensemble of galaxy state variables through time using our ODEs, compute differentiable summary statistics, compute a likelihood and its gradi￾ent, and repeat this process until converge… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Prior predictive checks for the three z = 0 galaxy scaling relations we focus on in this paper. In each panel, the black line comes from data and the gray lines are draws from uniform priors for model parameters. Left: stellar-mass-halo-mass relation. Middle: total ISM-to-stellar-mass ratios as a function of stellar mass. Right: ISM mass-metallicity relation. The prior predictive checks span the range of t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example Jacobian at a random point in parameter space for a single MW-mass halo showing the exact z = 0 sensitivity of the ODE state variables to parameter variations. The non-random structure of this Jacobian encodes the astrophysics and locally linearized dynamics of our galaxy formation model. Note that the colorbar uses a symmetric log normalization. The greatest sensitivity is to the energy loading no… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fractional sensitivity across parameter space for a range of halo masses. Brighter colors correspond to higher sensitivities. The 2D histogram panels show the ratio of the norm of each Jacobian column (parameter sensitivity) to the norm of the entire Jacobian matrix as a function of parameter value and halo mass. The combined sensitivity of all state variables to AE dominates over their sensitivity to the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mock parameter recovery tests using different combinations of z = 0 quasi-observable scaling relations in the best case scenario of no measurement uncertainties. Circles and errorbars show the MAP and Fisher uncertainty from adam. Crosses indicate that all three adam trajectories ended at a saddle point and we report only the lowest-loss solution. The top three rows with the gray background reflect our def… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mock parameter recovery summary statistics for our default progression of combining SMHM, fISM and ISM MZR (i.e., the top three rows from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of mock precision (black) and bias (blue) on assumed observational uncertainty. The left (right) column shows amplitude (slope) parameters. The fiducial observational uncertainty reflects our data as described in Section 2 and Appendix A. Here we always fit to all three z = 0 scaling relations and the errorbars reflect the 16-84 percentile spread across 100 random mocks. The precision improves a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior predictive checks from fitting different combinations of the z = 0 SMHM relation (left panel), ISM gas fractions (middle panel) and ISM MZR (right panel). In every panel, the black lines are for the data and there are three different sets of 100 colored lines which represent random draws from the posterior of a particular data combination (see legend). Note how the posterior draws are much tighte… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Joint posterior for astrophysical parameters when fitting to different combinations of data. The color scheme is the same as in the previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Forecasts for improved precision on our baseline model parameters assuming the observational errors are cut by a factor of two or ten including systematics. Top panel: 16-50-84 percentiles of the HMC posterior (large symbols) and the lowest-loss MAP and local Fisher uncertainty out of ten gradient descent trajectories (small symbols). For the latter, we show a cross if all ten adam trajectories ended at a… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior predictive checks (top panels) and marginal parameter posteriors (bottom panels) illustrating the effect of shifting the normalization of the SMHM relation. Gray curves reflect the original data whereas blue (red) curves are from shifting the SMHM relation by +0.3 (−0.3) dex. With all else fixed, increasing the SMHM relation corresponds to lower energy loading, faster depletion time, more mass l… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Posterior predictive distributions for a few additional quantities that we did not fit to. Panels with black (red) borders are for z = 0 (z = 2). As in previous figures, orange curves show Nadaraya-Watson regressions for 100 random draws from the posterior with fitting all three z = 0 scaling relations. In some panels, we color-code these curves by the ratio of AE/AM (colorbar range shown in top-right pan… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Effect of our selection cuts on the stellar mass distribution of the MaNGA sample. The left panel shows the number of galaxies whereas the right panel shows the fraction relative to the Pipe3D catalog. We use 0.2 dex wide bins between log M∗/M⊙ = 9 − 12. Note how the Pipe3D catalog (solid black line) has fewer low-mass and more high-mass galaxies than the parent NSA catalog (dotted black line), which was … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: ISM MZR (left) and ISM gas fractions (right) as a function of stellar mass for our star-forming, HI-detected MaNGA sample. In both panels, black points show individual galaxies with their measurement uncertainties. Yellow lines are from our Gaussian kernel regression and denote purely statistical uncertainties. Red lines add our assumed systematic uncertainty in quadrature: 0.2 dex for the MZR and 0.1 dex… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Simple hierarchical Bayesian model for SMHM relation of MaNGA galaxies. Left: the SMHM ratio and halo mass for three example galaxies (blue, green and magenta errorbars) follow the assumed Behroozi et al. (2019) relation. However, the posterior density from pooling all random realizations together reveals a bias in the average SMHM relation. The negative diagonal striping pattern is due to the hard log M∗… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Numerical convergence rate (left) and global relative errors (right) for different ODE solvers (solid lines for Tsit5, dashed lines for Bosh3) as a function of local tolerance and maximum allowed steps (blue/orange/green). Errorbars reflect the 16/50/84 percentiles of the distribution for 1000 random halos each evaluated at 1000 parameter sets uniformly sampled over a latin hypercube. Left: Both solvers r… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Runtime for solving and auto-diffing through the ODE systems of different numbers of halos on a single 64-core Intel Ice Lake CPU node (black), single Nvidia A100-80GB GPU (teal), four A100-80GB GPUs (dark blue), and eight H100-80GB GPUs (light blue). Solid lines are for solving the ODE system whereas dashed lines are for computing the gradients (Jacobians) with respect to 9 parameters. For small batch si… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Dependence of the relative symmetric error between autodiff and finite-difference Jacobians on ODE solver tolerances and the ϵ used for finite differencing. This is for a single random representative MW halo averaged over 2000 latin hypercube parameters with errorbars denoting 16-50-84 percentiles of the distribution of Jacobian residual norms. The black curve is a baseline from comparing autodiff Jacobia… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Fisher contours from auto-diff (color-filled) and finite-diff (unfilled with dashed black lines) at four different points in a two-parameter subspace of our model. The different points correspond to different true mock parameter values. The auto￾diff and finite-diff contours agree remarkably well, but finite-diff is much more expensive and requires tighter ODE tolerances to prevent numerical instabilities… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Semi-analytic models (SAMs) have been treating galaxy populations as dynamical systems for $\gtrsim50$ years, but their evolution equations remain poorly constrained. We introduce sapphire, a modular, automatically differentiable, GPU-accelerated SAM written from scratch in JAX. For the first time, we compute exact Jacobian matrices of our nonlinear differential equations and show that they have interpretable, non-random structures, using the Pandya et al. (2023) physical model as an initial example. Both local and global sensitivity analyses reveal that supernova energy loading is a key astrophysical parameter for galaxy evolution. We use gradient descent and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) to perform comprehensive mock parameter recovery tests. These indicate that the z=0 stellar-to-halo-mass relation alone does not contain enough information to infer many astrophysical parameters. Using observations of star-forming galaxies from the MaNGA survey and the Behroozi et al. (2019) empirical model as one baseline, we derive multiple posteriors assuming different combinations of data, including z=0 interstellar medium gas fractions and metallicities. The inferred physical parameters suggest that galaxies self-regulate their star formation primarily through preventative rather than ejective feedback. Both Fisher and HMC forecasts demonstrate the potential of sapphire to enable precision inference for galaxy formation, but more work is needed to expand its library of models. We discuss how our unique blend of differentiability, massive GPU parallelization, numerical robustness and principled Bayesian methods sets the stage for hybrid physics-informed, data-driven discovery of galaxy formation astrophysics and cosmology. We make sapphire publicly available at https://github.com/virajpandya/sapphire.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces sapphire, a modular, automatically differentiable, GPU-accelerated semi-analytic model (SAM) for galaxy formation written in JAX. Using the Pandya et al. (2023) physical model as an initial example, it computes exact Jacobian matrices of the nonlinear differential equations and demonstrates that they exhibit interpretable, non-random structures. Local and global sensitivity analyses identify supernova energy loading as a key astrophysical parameter. Mock parameter recovery tests via gradient descent and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) show that the z=0 stellar-to-halo-mass relation alone is insufficient to constrain many parameters. Incorporating MaNGA survey data on gas fractions and metallicities together with the Behroozi et al. (2019) empirical baseline, the paper derives posteriors under different data combinations and concludes that galaxies self-regulate star formation primarily through preventative rather than ejective feedback. Fisher and HMC forecasts are presented, and the code is released publicly.

Significance. If the central inference holds, this work provides a valuable new framework for hybrid physics-informed and data-driven galaxy formation modeling, leveraging differentiability for efficient sensitivity analysis and Bayesian inference. Explicit strengths include the public code release at https://github.com/virajpandya/sapphire, the computation of exact Jacobians, GPU parallelization, and the use of HMC for parameter recovery. These elements position the approach to enable more precise constraints on astrophysical parameters and could influence future SAM development.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5] §5 (Bayesian inference results): The conclusion that galaxies self-regulate primarily via preventative feedback is drawn from posteriors obtained with the z=0 SHMR plus MaNGA gas fractions and metallicities. However, no explicit test is provided showing that these observables break degeneracies between preventative (e.g., accretion suppression) and ejective (e.g., outflow loading) channels within the Pandya et al. (2023) parameterization, nor are alternative models or missing physics (such as AGN) explored to confirm the distinction is not an artifact of the chosen setup.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Sensitivity analysis): Supernova energy loading is identified as the most sensitive parameter, yet this is conventionally associated with ejective feedback; the manuscript does not supply a direct parameter-to-channel mapping or degeneracy analysis to reconcile this with the preventative-feedback dominance claim, which is load-bearing for the self-regulation interpretation.
  3. [§3] §3 (Jacobian computation): Exact Jacobian matrices are computed and stated to have interpretable non-random structures, but the text does not demonstrate quantitatively how these structures resolve the mapping from parameters to distinct feedback modes, leaving the link to the main physical conclusion unestablished.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and methods sections provide limited detail on data selection criteria, error treatment, and covariance assumptions for the MaNGA gas fractions and metallicities; expanding this would improve reproducibility.
  2. Figure captions for the Jacobian visualizations could include annotations or color scales that explicitly highlight the claimed interpretable structures.
  3. A summary table listing the median and 68% credible intervals for all inferred parameters across the different data combinations would aid comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be clarified and strengthened. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Bayesian inference results): The conclusion that galaxies self-regulate primarily via preventative feedback is drawn from posteriors obtained with the z=0 SHMR plus MaNGA gas fractions and metallicities. However, no explicit test is provided showing that these observables break degeneracies between preventative (e.g., accretion suppression) and ejective (e.g., outflow loading) channels within the Pandya et al. (2023) parameterization, nor are alternative models or missing physics (such as AGN) explored to confirm the distinction is not an artifact of the chosen setup.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Our manuscript demonstrates that the inclusion of MaNGA gas fractions and metallicities, in addition to the z=0 SHMR, leads to posterior distributions that favor parameters associated with preventative feedback over ejective channels in the Pandya et al. (2023) model. However, we agree that we have not provided an explicit test isolating the degeneracy-breaking power of these observables or explored alternative parameterizations including AGN feedback. We will revise the discussion in §5 to include a more nuanced interpretation of the results, explicitly noting the limitations of the current model setup and the need for future work to test robustness against missing physics. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Sensitivity analysis): Supernova energy loading is identified as the most sensitive parameter, yet this is conventionally associated with ejective feedback; the manuscript does not supply a direct parameter-to-channel mapping or degeneracy analysis to reconcile this with the preventative-feedback dominance claim, which is load-bearing for the self-regulation interpretation.

    Authors: The local sensitivity analysis indeed flags supernova energy loading as a key parameter, consistent with its role in driving outflows. To address the apparent tension with the preventative feedback conclusion, we will add a clear mapping of model parameters to physical channels (preventative vs. ejective) in §4.2. Additionally, we will incorporate a short degeneracy analysis showing how the Bayesian posteriors from combined datasets prioritize preventative parameters despite the sensitivity of ejective ones. This will help reconcile the two analyses. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§3] §3 (Jacobian computation): Exact Jacobian matrices are computed and stated to have interpretable non-random structures, but the text does not demonstrate quantitatively how these structures resolve the mapping from parameters to distinct feedback modes, leaving the link to the main physical conclusion unestablished.

    Authors: We accept that the quantitative link between Jacobian structures and feedback mode mappings is not explicitly demonstrated in the text. While the Jacobians enable our sensitivity and inference methods, we will enhance §3 with quantitative examples, such as identifying specific Jacobian elements or patterns that correspond to high-sensitivity parameters like supernova loading and preventative accretion terms. This will better connect the Jacobian computation to the physical insights. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's core contributions—exact Jacobian computation for the nonlinear DEs, sensitivity analyses, mock recovery tests, and Bayesian posteriors from MaNGA + SHMR data—are direct numerical operations and standard inference procedures applied to the Pandya et al. (2023) equations as an explicit initial example. No step reduces by construction to its inputs: the Jacobian structures are computed outputs, not presupposed; the preventative-feedback inference is a fitted result from the chosen observables rather than a renaming or self-definition; self-citations supply the model equations and baseline but are not load-bearing for the new differentiability claims or conclusions, which the paper itself qualifies by calling for expanded model libraries. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on an existing physical model and empirical baselines; free parameters are the astrophysical knobs being inferred, with no new entities postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • supernova energy loading
    Identified as a key parameter through local and global sensitivity analyses of the nonlinear equations.
  • multiple astrophysical parameters
    Inferred via gradient descent and HMC from mock data and MaNGA observations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Pandya et al. (2023) physical model provides an adequate description of the relevant galaxy evolution processes.
    Used as the initial example for demonstrating the framework's capabilities.
  • domain assumption Combinations of z=0 stellar-to-halo-mass relation, gas fractions, and metallicities are sufficient to constrain feedback mechanisms.
    Basis for the posterior derivations and feedback-type conclusion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1497 out tokens · 74511 ms · 2026-05-10T19:31:47.378621+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Informative Priors on Primordial Non-Gaussianity Bias $b_{\phi}$ From Galaxy Formation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Conditioning CAMELS-SAM simulations on the stellar mass function or stellar-to-halo mass relation reduces uncertainty in b_phi by 88-97% for DESI emission line galaxy samples while remaining consistent across galaxy f...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    DiffstarPop: A generative physical model of galaxy star formation history

    Alarcon, A., Hearin, A. P., Becker, M. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27604, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.27604 Alsing, J., Thorp, S., Deger, S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.27604 2025

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/17-468.html Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013a, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013b, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109 Behrooz...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  3. [3]

    F., Croton, D., Bundy, K., et al

    http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/hoffman14a.html Hopkins, P. F., Croton, D., Bundy, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/915 Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 Horowitz, B., Hahn, C., Lanusse, F., Modi, C., & Ferraro, S. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae350 Horo...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/915 2010

  4. [4]

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/1268522 McQuinn, K. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 Mitchell, P. D., & Schaye, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3339 Mitchell, P. D., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., & Crain, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa938 Mitra, S., Dav´ e, R., & Finla...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 2019

  5. [5]

    Here we combine the Primary, Secondary and Color-Enhanced Samples

    using simple cuts on redshift,i-band luminosity and color designed to mitigate selection biases. Here we combine the Primary, Secondary and Color-Enhanced Samples. The Primary Sample selects galaxies atz∼0.03 for IFU coverage out to 1.5 times the half-light radius. The Secondary Sample includes more distant galaxies atz∼0.06 to enable IFU coverage out to ...

    2019

  6. [6]

    multiple imputations

    We are able to cross-match our star-forming sample above to 3567 galaxies in the HI-MaNGA survey. Of these, only 2393 galaxies have HI detections. Lastly, because we only model halos up to logM vir/M⊙ ∼12, we cut off the sample at logM ∗/M⊙ = 9−10.5, leaving 1787 galaxies in our final sample. A.2.ISM mass-metallicity relation Figure 17 shows our fit to th...

    2022

  7. [7]

    fraction

    and in Subsection 6.4 we assess the impact of systematic shifts in the ISM MZR on model parameter posteriors. A.3.ISM gas fractions Figure 17 also shows our regression of the ISM gas fraction, which is more involved since we start with only HI masses from HI-MaNGA (Masters et al. 2019; Stark et al. 2021). We assign every MaNGA galaxy a value ofR mol ≡M H2...

    2019

  8. [8]

    degraded

    sapphire: Towards Hybrid Physics-Informed, Data-Driven Modeling of Galaxy Formation41 Figure 18.Simple hierarchical Bayesian model for SMHM relation of MaNGA galaxies. Left: the SMHM ratio and halo mass for three example galaxies (blue, green and magenta errorbars) follow the assumed Behroozi et al. (2019) relation. However, the posterior density from poo...

    2019

  9. [9]

    forward-mode

    of magnitude speed gains by solving large batches of ODE systems in parallel using vectorized inputs such as our interpolated merger tree matrices. Figure 21 compares the runtime for solving the ODE systems of different numbers of halos on CPUs and GPUs. All runtimes exclude the initialjitcompilation time. For small batch sizes, GPUs are∼10×slower than CP...

    2021

  10. [10]

    As a baseline, the black line compares each autodiff Jacobian to the “true” autodiff Jacobian with the tightesta tol =r tol = 10−12

    depends ona tol =r tol andϵ. As a baseline, the black line compares each autodiff Jacobian to the “true” autodiff Jacobian with the tightesta tol =r tol = 10−12. Since autodiff Jacobians are not subject to finite-diff noise from an arbitraryϵ, this is a self-consistency check of the dependence of the numerical ODE solution on solver error tolerances alone...

    2000

  11. [11]

    The numerical exercises of this subsection increase our confidence in the auto-diff gradients used throughout this paper. Surprisingly, we are unable to find any other study in the≳50 year history of SAMs that attempted this kind of sensitivity analysis using finite-differences, likely because it is very expensive and requires multi-GPU parallelization. N...

    2023