pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.20361 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

The HyLight model for hydrogen emission lines in simulated nebulae

Yuankang Liu , Tom Theuns , Tsang Keung Chan , Alexander J. Richings , Anna F. McLeod This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 14:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM
keywords hydrogen linesnebulaesimulationsatomic physicsemission diagnosticsphotoionization
0
0 comments X

The pith

HyLight calculates hydrogen level populations directly from local physical conditions in nebular simulations.

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

Hydrodynamical simulations often rely on tabulated emissivities for hydrogen lines instead of computing them from current gas properties. The HyLight model solves for hydrogen level populations using density, temperature, and ionization state to produce line emissivities. This enables use in non-equilibrium environments where tables may not apply. It agrees with Cloudy to within 1% for Balmer, Paschen, and Brackett series under typical conditions. The model supports generating synthetic emission maps from simulations and improves connections between models and observations.

Core claim

The HyLight model computes hydrogen level populations and line emissivities from supplied gas density, temperature, and ionization state for use in both equilibrium and non-equilibrium settings. Benchmark tests demonstrate agreement with Cloudy predictions for Balmer, Paschen, and Brackett emissivities to within 1 percent in typical photoionized nebulae, with larger differences from other published calculations. An example application includes calculating photoionization-to-line intensity ratios in an HII region and creating synthetic hydrogen emission maps from a radiation-hydrodynamical simulation with non-equilibrium thermochemistry.

What carries the argument

HyLight, a Python atomic model solving statistical equilibrium for hydrogen to obtain emissivities from local conditions.

If this is right

  • Accurate emissivities are available for non-equilibrium ionization states.
  • Synthetic hydrogen emission maps can be produced from simulation data.
  • Photoionization diagnostics can be computed consistently with hydrodynamics.
  • Hydrogen emission in complex environments can be interpreted with greater physical consistency.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • HyLight could be extended to predict emission from other elements for broader diagnostics.
  • Embedding it in simulation codes may allow real-time line predictions during runs.
  • Testing against observations of known HII regions could validate its use in data interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The atomic rate coefficients and the method for solving level populations accurately reflect real physics.

What would settle it

Observing a discrepancy exceeding 1% between HyLight and Cloudy emissivities for Balmer lines in standard photoionized conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.20361 by Alexander J. Richings, Anna F. McLeod, Tom Theuns, Tsang Keung Chan, Yuankang Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Profile of H𝛼 emissivity, 𝜖 (H𝛼) ≡ 𝜖3,2, of the idealised spherical setup for different models: the reference Cloudy model ‘Ref-Sph’(purple triangles), the Raga et al. (2015) model (yellow crosses) and the tabulated values from Storey & Hummer (1995) (black diamonds). The top panel shows the emissivity; the lower panel is the relative difference in emissivity compared to ‘Ref-Sph’ in per cent. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: Cumulative 𝑛𝑙-resolved recombination rate, Í𝑛 𝑛′=1 Í𝑛 ′ 𝑙 ′=0 𝛼𝑛′ 𝑙 ′ (𝑇), up to a given 𝑛, for various temperatures as per the legend. Diamonds are the difference in per cent of the cumulative rate compared to the total recombination coefficient, 𝛼A. The black dashed line at 0 is drawn to guide the eye. For 𝑇 = 104 K, the cumulative rate for 𝑛 = 100 equals the total rate to better than 0.5 per… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Convergence of the emissivity, 𝜖 , for selected hydrogen transitions for different models in Case A. The reference setup is ‘Ref - ALSh’ as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Profile of H𝛼 emissivity, 𝜖 (H𝛼) ≡ 𝜖3,2, of a gas cloud ionized by a laser beam. This Cloudy setup is labelled as ‘Ref - LSph’ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence of the collisional contribution to H𝛼 emissivity as a function of the number of resolved levels, 𝑛max. The reference setup is ‘Ref - LSph’ where the temperature is kept at 104 K throughout the cloud. The reference emissivity, 𝜖ref, is extracted at 2 pc from the source, where the gas is neutral and collisional excitation dominates over radiative recombination. As the number of levels increases i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Test of the importance of Lyman photons from the source: H𝛼 emissivity profile of a spherical gas cloud ionized by a source with a blackbody spectrum. The model is referred to as ‘Ref - Sph’ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scaled level population for level 𝑛3𝑙 as a function of 𝑙 in set-up Ref￾ASh, the factor 𝐹 is the mean level population calculated using Equation (23). Results are shown for HyLight (red stars), Raga et al. (2015) (black circles), Storey & Hummer (1988) (blue crosses) and Cloudy (yellow diamonds). All models agree well, except for that of Raga et al. (2015) which assumes that the population level is set by s… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Departure from LTE for different states (3𝑠 in red, 10𝑠 in orange, and 66𝑠 in yellow) at a fixed temperature of 104 K as a function of gas density. The level populations are extracted from Cloudy ‘Ref - ASh’ setup. The vertical axis shows the deviation from LTE (see Equation C3) in per cent. Lower levels are far from the LTE predictions at low densities. As the gas density increases, all the levels approac… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction 𝐵 𝑅 2,1 of the total number of recombinations that result in the emission of a Lyman 𝛼 photon as a function of temperature, assuming Case A recombinations (blue), or Case B recombinations (red). The HyLight model is shown as drawn lines; the interpolation functions from Cantalupo et al. (2008) and Dijkstra (2014) are shown with dotted lines; discrete Storey & Hummer (1995) values are shown with o… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: H𝛼 intensity of the idealised H ii region simulation, computed by integrating the IFU cube obtained from Radmc-3d over wavelength. As expected, H𝛼 originates predominantly from the highly ionised gas inside the Strömgren radius (𝑅𝑆 ≈ 4.6 pc), as indicated by the dashed white circle. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Impact parameter R [pc] −6.0 −5.5 −5.0 −4.5 −4.0 −3.5 −3.0 −2.5 −2.0 I(R) [erg s −1 cm−2 ] Cloudy Radmc-3D [P… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: H𝛼 surface brightness profile of the idealised H ii region simu￾lation. The result from combining Sparcs with HyLight and Radmc-3d are shown in red (where the solid line is the median profile, the shaded region encompasses the 10th ∼ 90th percentiles), the Cloudy result is shown in blue. The two models agree well with each other inside the H ii region. There are small differences close to and outside the … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Surface density of hydrogen gas (left panel) and H𝛼 intensity (right panel) for the case of an initially turbulent density field. Ionising radiation is injected perpendicular to the 𝑥 = 0 plane, with Sparcs propagating the radiation to the right. Photons are removed from the radiation field for 𝑥 > 0.8 pc (grey hashed regions in both panels) to avoid effects of periodic boundary conditions. The hydrogen s… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Relation between hydrogen surface density, ΣH, and H𝛼 surface brightness, 𝐼(H𝛼), for the simulation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hydrogen recombination lines provide key diagnostics of ionized gas in galaxies, yet most hydrodynamical simulations estimate hydrogen level populations using interpolated emissivity tables rather than computing them directly from local physical conditions. We present HyLight, a Python-based atomic model that calculates hydrogen level populations and line emissivities from the gas density, temperature, and ionization state, enabling accurate predictions in both equilibrium and non-equilibrium environments. Benchmark comparisons show that HyLight reproduces Cloudy predictions for Balmer, Paschen, and Brackett emissivities to within 1 per cent under typical photoionized nebular conditions, while discrepancies of several tens of per cent arise relative to other published calculations. As an illustrative application, we use HyLight to compute photoionization-to-line intensity ratios in an HII nebula and generate synthetic hydrogen emission maps from a radiation-hydrodynamical simulation that includes non-equilibrium thermochemistry. Combining physical consistency with flexibility, HyLight provides a robust framework for connecting hydrodynamical simulations with observational diagnostics of photoionized regions, and enhances our ability to interpret hydrogen emission in complex, non-equilibrium astrophysical environments.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces HyLight, a Python-based atomic model that computes hydrogen level populations and line emissivities directly from local gas density, temperature, and ionization state. It reports that the model reproduces Cloudy predictions for Balmer, Paschen, and Brackett emissivities to within 1% under typical photoionized nebular conditions, notes larger discrepancies with other calculations, and demonstrates application to photoionization ratios in an HII nebula plus synthetic emission maps from a radiation-hydrodynamical simulation that includes non-equilibrium thermochemistry.

Significance. If the non-equilibrium capabilities hold, HyLight would provide a physically consistent, flexible alternative to interpolated emissivity tables, enabling more accurate line diagnostics in complex, time-dependent astrophysical environments such as those in galaxy simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Benchmark comparisons and § on non-equilibrium application] The 1% reproduction of Cloudy results is stated only for equilibrium photoionized conditions (see benchmark comparisons). The central application instead deploys the model within a radiation-hydrodynamical simulation that evolves level populations via time-dependent rate equations; no quantitative validation (e.g., against time-dependent Cloudy or another non-equilibrium code) is presented for those regimes, leaving the headline accuracy claim unextended to the advertised use case.
  2. [Methods description of level population solver] The statistical-equilibrium solver and atomic rate coefficients are described as standard, yet the manuscript provides no error budget, convergence tests, or sensitivity analysis for the non-equilibrium integrator under the stiffness conditions typical of radiation-hydro simulations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract notes 'discrepancies of several tens of per cent' with other published calculations but does not identify the specific calculations or the physical conditions under which they occur.
  2. [Application section] Notation for the time-dependent rate equations and the coupling to the hydrodynamical thermochemistry could be clarified with an explicit equation or flowchart.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and outline the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Benchmark comparisons and § on non-equilibrium application] The 1% reproduction of Cloudy results is stated only for equilibrium photoionized conditions (see benchmark comparisons). The central application instead deploys the model within a radiation-hydrodynamical simulation that evolves level populations via time-dependent rate equations; no quantitative validation (e.g., against time-dependent Cloudy or another non-equilibrium code) is presented for those regimes, leaving the headline accuracy claim unextended to the advertised use case.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the quantitative 1% agreement with Cloudy is shown specifically for equilibrium photoionized conditions in the benchmark section. The non-equilibrium application in the radiation-hydrodynamical simulation uses HyLight to solve the time-dependent rate equations for level populations. While we do not provide direct comparisons to a time-dependent Cloudy implementation or similar non-equilibrium codes, this is because such detailed time-dependent benchmarks are not standard in the literature and would require substantial additional work beyond the scope of the current study. We will revise the manuscript to more clearly distinguish between the validated equilibrium accuracy and the non-equilibrium application, emphasizing that the latter benefits from the direct computation of level populations from local conditions and the use of standard rate equations. We will also add a short discussion on potential sources of uncertainty in non-equilibrium regimes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods description of level population solver] The statistical-equilibrium solver and atomic rate coefficients are described as standard, yet the manuscript provides no error budget, convergence tests, or sensitivity analysis for the non-equilibrium integrator under the stiffness conditions typical of radiation-hydro simulations.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current manuscript lacks a detailed error budget, convergence tests, and sensitivity analysis for the non-equilibrium solver. Although the integrator employs standard implicit methods designed for stiff systems, we will add a dedicated subsection to the Methods section. This will include: (i) a description of the numerical integrator and its implementation, (ii) convergence tests varying the timestep and solver tolerances under conditions representative of radiation-hydrodynamical simulations, and (iii) a basic sensitivity analysis to key rate coefficients. These additions will provide the requested error budget and demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct quantitative validation of the non-equilibrium level population evolution against time-dependent Cloudy or equivalent codes, as this would necessitate new, computationally expensive simulations not performed in the original study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in HyLight derivation

full rationale

The paper presents HyLight as directly computing hydrogen level populations and emissivities from supplied local density, temperature, and ionization state via standard atomic rate coefficients and a statistical-equilibrium solver. The 1% reproduction of Cloudy emissivities is framed as an external benchmark comparison under specified conditions rather than a fit or self-referential definition. No equations reduce predictions to inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked for uniqueness, and the non-equilibrium application is an extension of the independent core method. The derivation remains self-contained against external atomic physics benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the model rests on standard atomic physics assumptions for level populations and rate coefficients; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hydrogen level populations can be accurately determined from local density, temperature, and ionization state using standard atomic rate equations.
    Invoked when the model computes populations instead of using interpolated tables.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5733 in / 1240 out tokens · 40071 ms · 2026-05-18T14:04:27.410436+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We present HyLight, a Python-based atomic model that calculates hydrogen level populations and line emissivities from the gas density, temperature, and ionization state... Benchmark comparisons show that HyLight reproduces Cloudy predictions for Balmer, Paschen, and Brackett emissivities to within 1 per cent under typical photoionized nebular conditions.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The level population is obtained by solving the following set of coupled linear equations... using the Cascade Matrix Formalism

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Gravitational Spectral Radio Forest: A Signature of Primordial Black Holes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Asteroid-mass primordial black holes induce a Riemann tidal splitting of the 2P_{3/2} hydrogen state, turning the 9.9 GHz line into a ~2 GHz bandwidth gravitational spectral radio forest in H II regions with accretion...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Badnell N

    Anderson H., Ballance C. P., Badnell N. R., Summers H. P., 2000, @doi [Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics] 10.1088/0953-4075/33/6/311 , 33, 1255

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/33/6/311 2000

  2. [2]

    P., Badnell N

    Anderson H., Ballance C. P., Badnell N. R., Summers H. P., 2002, @doi [Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics] 10.1088/0953-4075/35/6/701 , 35, 1613

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/35/6/701 2002

  3. [3]

    E., 2013, Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide, 7th ed edn

    Arfken G., Weber H.-J., Harris F. E., 2013, Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide, 7th ed edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam Boston

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    G., Menzel D

    Baker J. G., Menzel D. H., 1938, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/143959 , 88, 52

    work page doi:10.1086/143959 1938

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/130766 , 93, 5

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    F., Pauli W., Rubinowicz A., Wentzel G., Smekal A., eds, 1933, Quantentheorie

    Bethe H., Hund F., Mott N. F., Pauli W., Rubinowicz A., Wentzel G., Smekal A., eds, 1933, Quantentheorie . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-52619-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-52619-0 1933

  7. [7]

    Borrow J., Borrisov A., 2020, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02430 , 5, 2430

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02430 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Ferland G

    Bottorff M. C., Ferland G. J., Straley J. P., 2006, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/506974 , 118, 1176

    work page doi:10.1086/506974 2006

  9. [9]

    Brocklehurst M., 1971, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 , 153, 471

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 1971

  10. [10]

    J., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/523298 , 672, 48

    Cantalupo S., Porciani C., Lilly S. J., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/523298 , 672, 48

    work page doi:10.1086/523298 2008

  11. [11]

    K., Theuns T., Bower R., Frenk C., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1686 , 505, 5784

    Chan T. K., Theuns T., Bower R., Frenk C., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1686 , 505, 5784

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1686 2021

  12. [12]

    K., Richings A

    Chan T. K., Richings A. J., Theuns T., Liu Y., Schaller M., Ivkovic M., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250813277C p. arXiv:2508.13277

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A., 2006, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053988 , 446, 39

    Chluba J., Sunyaev R. A., 2006, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053988 , 446, 39

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053988 2006

  14. [14]

    D., Hindmarsh A

    Cohen S. D., Hindmarsh A. C., Dubois P. F., 1996, @doi [Computers in Physics] 10.1063/1.4822377 , 10, 138

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4822377 1996

  15. [15]

    Collette A., et al., 2022, h5py/h5py: 3.7.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6575970 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6575970

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6575970 2022

  16. [16]

    J., Kewley L

    D'Agostino J. J., Kewley L. J., Groves B., Byler N., Sutherland R. S., Nicholls D., Leitherer C., Stanway E. R., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5e , 878, 2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5e 2019

  17. [17]

    Dijkstra M., 2014, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2014.33 , 31, e040

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.33 2014

  18. [18]

    A., Sutherland R

    Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/192255 , 102, 161

    work page doi:10.1086/192255 1996

  19. [19]

    Drory N., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6de9 , 168, 198

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6de9 2024

  20. [20]

    Dullemond C. P., Juhasz A., Pohl A., Sereshti F., Shetty R., Peters T., Commercon B., Flock M., 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    J., Peterson B

    Ferland G. J., Peterson B. M., Horne K., Welsh W. F., Nahar S. N., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/171063 , 387, 95

    work page doi:10.1086/171063 1992

  22. [22]

    J., van Hoof P

    Ferland G. J., van Hoof P. A. M., Chatzikos M., Gunasekera C. M., Chakraborty P., Shaw G., Dehghanian M., 1999, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:9910.001

    work page 1999

  23. [23]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, The 2017 Release Cloudy , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  24. [24]

    J., ZuHone J

    Goldbaum N. J., ZuHone J. A., Turk M. J., Kowalik K., Rosen A. L., 2018, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00809 , 3, 809

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00809 2018

  25. [25]

    Gordon W., 1929, @doi [Annalen der Physik] 10.1002/andp.19293940807 , 394, 1031

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.19293940807 1929

  26. [26]

    C., Maisenbacher L., Wirthl V., Pohl R., H \"a nsch T

    Grinin A., Matveev A., Yost D. C., Maisenbacher L., Wirthl V., Pohl R., H \"a nsch T. W., Udem T., 2020, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abc7776 , 370, 1061

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abc7776 2020

  27. [27]

    Groves B., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad114 , 520, 4902

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad114 2023

  28. [28]

    Y., Guszejnov D., Hopkins P

    Grudi \'c M. Y., Guszejnov D., Hopkins P. F., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1347 , 506, 2199

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1347 2021

  29. [29]

    M., Van Hoof P

    Gunasekera C. M., Van Hoof P. A. M., Chatzikos M., Ferland G. J., 2023, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 , 7, 246

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 2023

  30. [30]

    Guzm \'a n F., Chatzikos M., van Hoof P. A. M., Balser D. S., Dehghanian M., Badnell N. R., Ferland G. J., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz857 , 486, 1003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz857 2019

  31. [31]

    J., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf605 , 539, 2939

    Guzm \'a n F., Chatzikos M., Ferland G. J., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf605 , 539, 2939

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf605 2025

  32. [32]

    Harris, K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  33. [33]

    K., 2003, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031144 , 410, 83

    Hirashita H., Buat V., Inoue A. K., 2003, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031144 , 410, 83

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031144 2003

  34. [34]

    P., Somerville R

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Choi E., Ostriker J. P., Somerville R. S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2180 , 472, 2468

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2180 2017

  35. [35]

    S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , 487, 333

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Feltre A., Naab T., Somerville R. S., Choi E., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1256 , 487, 333

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1256 2019

  36. [36]

    S., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2745 , 526, 3504

    Hirschmann M., Charlot S., Somerville R. S., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2745 , 526, 3504

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2745

  37. [37]

    Hirschmann M., et al., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2955 , 526, 3610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2955

  38. [38]

    Hoang-Binh D., 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 238, 449

    work page 1990

  39. [39]

    Hoang-Binh D., 2005, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2004.11.005 , 166, 191

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2004.11.005 2005

  40. [40]

    Case B calculations for H I and He II

    Hummer D. G., Storey P. J., 1987, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/224.3.801 , 224, 801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/224.3.801 1987

  41. [41]

    G., Storey P

    Hummer D. G., Storey P. J., 1992, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/254.2.277 , 254, 277

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.2.277 1992

  42. [42]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  43. [43]

    Isobe Y., et al., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056 , 541, L71

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf056 2025

  44. [44]

    J., Sutherland R., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 , 927, 37

    Jin Y., Kewley L. J., Sutherland R., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 , 927, 37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac48f3 2022

  45. [45]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    Katz H., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac423 , 512, 348

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac423 2022

  47. [47]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , 346, 1055

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  48. [48]

    Star Formation in Galaxies Along the Hubble Sequence

    Kennicutt R. C., 1998, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , 36, 189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  49. [49]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/341326 , 142, 35

    work page doi:10.1086/341326 2002

  50. [50]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321545 , 556, 121

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 , 57, 511

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  52. [52]

    Labzowsky L., Solovyev D., Plunien G., Soff G., 2006, @doi [The European Physical Journal D] 10.1140/epjd/e2006-00022-6 , 37, 335

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2006-00022-6 2006

  53. [53]

    S., Beigman I

    Lebedev V. S., Beigman I. L., 1998, Physics of Highly Excited Atoms and Ions . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-72175-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-72175-5 1998

  54. [54]

    Levermore C., 1984, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2 , 31, 149

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2 1984

  55. [55]

    Luridiana V., Sim \'o n-D \'i az S., Cervi \ n o M., Delgado R. M. G., Porter R. L., Ferland G. J., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1712 , 691, 1712

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1712 2009

  56. [56]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/118 , 807, 118

    Lykins M. L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/118 , 807, 118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/118 2015

  57. [57]

    A., Rosales-Ortega , F

    Marino R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 , 559, A114

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 2013

  58. [58]

    G., 1988, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/191249 , 66, 125

    Martin P. G., 1988, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/191249 , 66, 125

    work page doi:10.1086/191249 1988

  59. [59]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    McClymont W., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250304894M p. arXiv:2503.04894

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.04894 2025

  60. [60]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney W., 2010, in Python in Science Conference . Austin, Texas, pp 56--61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    work page doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  61. [61]

    F., Dale J

    McLeod A. F., Dale J. E., Ginsburg A., Ercolano B., Gritschneder M., Ramsay S., Testi L., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv680 , 450, 1057

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv680 2015

  62. [62]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1864 , 462, 3537

    McLeod A. F., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1864 , 462, 3537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1864 2016

  63. [63]

    F., Dale J

    McLeod A. F., Dale J. E., Evans C. J., Ginsburg A., Kruijssen J. M. D., Pellegrini E. W., Ramsay S. K., Testi L., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2696 , 486, 5263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2696 2019

  64. [64]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , 508, 5425

    McLeod A. F., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , 508, 5425

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2726 2021

  65. [65]

    H., 1937, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/143827 , 85, 330

    Menzel D. H., 1937, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/143827 , 85, 330

    work page doi:10.1086/143827 1937

  66. [66]

    H., Baker J

    Menzel D. H., Baker J. G., 1937, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/143844 , 86, 70

    work page doi:10.1086/143844 1937

  67. [67]

    N., 1978, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/0022-4073(78)90024-9 , 20, 541

    Minerbo G. N., 1978, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/0022-4073(78)90024-9 , 20, 541

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(78)90024-9 1978

  68. [68]

    ascl:1304.020

    Morisset C., 2013, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1304.020

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    Nussbaumer H., Schmutz W., 1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 138, 495

    work page 1984

  70. [70]

    E., 1974, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae

    Osterbrock D. E., 1974, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae

    work page 1974

  71. [71]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    work page 2006

  72. [72]

    Peimbert M., 1967, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/149385 , 150, 825

    work page doi:10.1086/149385 1967

  73. [73]

    W., Oey M

    Pellegrini E. W., Oey M. S., Winkler P. F., Points S. D., Smith R. C., Jaskot A. E., Zastrow J., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/40 , 755, 40

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/40 2012

  74. [74]

    M., Seaton M

    Pengelly R. M., Seaton M. J., 1964a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/127.2.145 , 127, 145

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/127.2.145

  75. [75]

    M., Seaton M

    Pengelly R. M., Seaton M. J., 1964b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/127.2.165 , 127, 165

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/127.2.165

  76. [76]

    Perez-Montero E., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu753 , 441, 2663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu753 2014

  77. [77]

    P \'e rez-Montero E., 2017, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5abb , 129, 043001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa5abb 2017

  78. [78]

    M., 2001, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1023/A:1012735812409 , 277, 83

    P \'e rez E., Gonz \'a lez Delgado R., V \'i lchez J. M., 2001, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1023/A:1012735812409 , 277, 83

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1012735812409 2001

  79. [79]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price D. J., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2018.25 , 35, e031

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.25 2018

  80. [80]

    C., Castellanos-Ram \'i rez A., Esquivel A., Rodr \'i guez-Gonz \'a lez A., Vel \'a zquez P

    Raga A. C., Castellanos-Ram \'i rez A., Esquivel A., Rodr \'i guez-Gonz \'a lez A., Vel \'a zquez P. F., 2015, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 51, 231

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.