Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Balmer breaks in simulated galaxies at z>6

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No simulated galaxy matches the Balmer break seen in JD1

desk verdict Useful, honest simulation study that challenges the JD1 Balmer break, but the observational anchor needs a line-contamination check before the 'no likely scenarios' conclusion lands fully. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11393 v1 pith:5V4JRKPB submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.GA

C. Binggeli , E. Zackrisson , X. Ma , A. K. Inoue , A. Vikaeus , T. Hashimoto , K. Mawatari , I. Shimizu
show 1 more author
D. Ceverino
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Balmerbreakhigh-redshiftgalaxiesMACS1149-JD1starformationhistorygalaxysimulationsJWSTpredictionsSpitzer/IRACcolorsbursty
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 asks whether the bursty star formation histories produced by current cosmological simulations can explain the strong Balmer break inferred in the z≈9.1 galaxy MACS1149-JD1. The authors build synthetic spectra for thousands of simulated galaxies from three independent simulation suites, varying dust, ionizing-photon escape, and the stellar initial mass function. They find that no simulated galaxy reproduces a Balmer break as strong as JD1's, and that even extreme model choices leave such breaks rare or absent. If right, JD1 is either a very unusual object or the simulations are missing a key ingredient; the paper offers JWST-observable Balmer break distributions as a test.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a spectroscopic Balmer break diagnostic defined as B4200/3500 = Fν(4200 Å)/Fν(3500 Å), chosen because both continuum bins are observable with JWST/NIRSpec at R≈100 without line contamination. For comparison with JD1 at z=9.11, the break is instead measured through the Spitzer/IRAC 4.5/3.6 µm flux ratio. Synthetic SEDs are assembled from single-age stellar population spectra with nebular emission, interpolated over each star particle's age and metallicity and summed, then reddened by one of several dust prescriptions including a screen model and radiative-transfer post-processing. The comparison between these simulated IRAC ratios and JD1's observed value is what carries the argument, because the ratio is sensitive to the age of the dominant stellar population and hence to the depth and duration of star formation troughs.

What would settle it

Take JWST/NIRSpec spectra of a sample of z≈7–9 galaxies and measure the 3500/4200 Å continuum ratio; if the observed distribution contains several galaxies with B4200/3500 > 2, the paper's claim that simulations cannot produce such breaks would fail, while a spectroscopic measurement of JD1 showing a weaker break or a dust-dominated origin would dissolve the tension.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Balmer break strength of MACS1149-JD1, inferred from its Spitzer/IRAC 4.5/3.6 µm flux ratio at z=9.11, lies above the break strengths produced by any of the simulated galaxies considered. This holds across the large-volume simulation, the burstier high-resolution zoom-in sample with several dust treatments, and the pre-generated spectral suite, and it survives variations in dust-to-metal ratio, escape fraction, and initial mass function. The only modeled route toward breaks of JD1's size is an extreme galaxy-wide dust screen with AV=0.5, and even that does not produce a matching object. The authors conclude that, unless JD1 is drawn from a very rare tail, current simulations are missing some physical ingredient, most plausibly stronger feedback that would drive larger star-formation-rate fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument presumes that JD1's red Spitzer/IRAC colour really is a strong Balmer break of the inferred size, rather than a product of differential dust attenuation or a measurement error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JWST/NIRSpec R≈100 spectroscopy of z≈7–9 galaxies with m_AB(1500 Å)≈27 should, if the simulations are right, reveal Balmer break distributions close to those predicted here, with few galaxies above B4200/3500 ≈ 2.
  • A substantial observed population with strong breaks would indicate that feedback in simulations is too weak to generate the required star-formation-rate fluctuations.
  • Differential dust obscuration, while present in the radiative-transfer post-processing, is not sufficient to create JD1-like breaks, distinguishing the paper's conclusion from dust-only explanations.
  • Because the escape fraction shifts the break distribution, Balmer break strength cannot be read purely as an age indicator unless the escape fraction is known.
  • The exposure-time estimate implies that roughly ten hours of JWST/NIRSpec time per galaxy suffice for the test, making the proposed comparison feasible in the near future.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit: the tension may be read as evidence that star formation at z>6 is more bursty than current feedback implementations allow, so Balmer break distributions could serve as a quantitative calibrator for feedback strength in simulations.
  • The single-object status of JD1 and its large IRAC error bar mean the cleanest test is not one more object but the full distribution; even a handful of spectroscopically confirmed z>7 galaxies with strong breaks would falsify the simulation predictions.
  • The paper's photometric-redshift tests suggest the strong-break interpretation of JD1 is not an artifact of redshift selection, which if confirmed raises the stakes for the dust-attenuation alternative proposed elsewhere.
  • A natural extension would be to compute the same B4200/3500 distributions for simulations with varied feedback prescriptions or larger volumes, to quantify how rare JD1-like galaxies must be before the tension becomes a discrepancy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper generates synthetic SEDs for simulated galaxies at z≈7–9 from three independent simulation suites (S16, FIRE-2, FirstLight) and measures Balmer break strengths using two diagnostics: a JWST-oriented continuum ratio B4200/3500 and the Spitzer/IRAC 4.5/3.6 µm flux ratio at z=9.11. The simulated distributions are compared with the spectroscopically confirmed galaxy MACS1149-JD1, whose strong IRAC break has been interpreted as evidence of a large fluctuation in its star formation history. The authors find that none of their simulated galaxies, under a range of dust prescriptions, escape fractions, IMF choices, and stellar population models, produce Balmer breaks as strong as inferred for JD1, and they conclude that JD1 is either a very rare object or that simulations miss a key ingredient. They also present predicted Balmer break distributions observable with JWST/NIRSpec.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper provides a well-defined tension between current galaxy formation simulations and an existing high-redshift observation, together with falsifiable predictions that JWST can test. The strengths of the paper are its use of multiple independent simulations, publicly available stellar population synthesis and radiative transfer tools (Yggdrasil, starburst99, BPASS, SKIRT), and a systematic exploration of dust, escape fraction, IMF, and simulation choice. The main scientific conclusion is, however, conditional on the interpretation of the JD1 IRAC measurement as a Balmer break, and the rarity claim is not statistically quantified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1 and §3.3] The paper's central comparison to JD1 assumes that the observed F4.5/F3.6 excess is a Balmer break, but the introduction itself notes that red IRAC colors at z~9 are often produced by strong [OIII] and Hβ emission. At z=9.11, Hβ 4861 Å, Hγ 4340 Å, and Hδ 4101 Å fall inside the IRAC 4.5 µm passband, and the spectroscopic redshift only rules out the [OIII] λ5007 contribution. The authors never estimate or subtract this Balmer-line contamination before concluding in §4.2 that 'no likely scenarios' produce simulated SEDs with Balmer breaks as strong as observed. I request a quantitative test (e.g., photoionization-based line flux estimates or a line-free IRAC flux measurement) that demonstrates the inferred break is not inflated by line emission.
  2. [§2.1, §3.3, and Table 1] The conclusion that JD1-like galaxies are rare is not quantified with respect to sample size. The z=9 samples used for the IRAC comparison contain 150 (FIRE-2) and 182 (S16) objects, and in most models zero galaxies reach the JD1 break. With zero successes, a 95% Poisson upper limit on the fraction is about 2%, which is still consistent with JD1 being a rare tail rather than a fundamental failure of the simulations. The text should report such an upper limit (or a completeness estimate) before claiming that the simulations 'are unable to account for' the observed break.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 7] Please give the numerical value of the JD1 F4.5/F3.6 ratio and its uncertainty in the text or caption, rather than only showing it as a dashed line.
  2. [§2.2] The phrase 'In both of these cases, dust extinction is occurring in a so-called dust-screen' is confusing because the SKIRT post-processing is not a screen model; please rephrase to distinguish the three dust treatments explicitly.
  3. [§3.1.2] The sentence reporting 'the largest individual and average increase in the Balmer break for the FIRE-2 galaxies with the Yggdrasil SSP grid is ∆B≈0.19 and ∆B≈0.45, respectively' appears to have the average and individual values switched; please check.
  4. [§4.2] The list of 11 photometric z≥9.1 objects is introduced without specifying the sample selection; please state the source of the list and the exact IRAC criteria used to define 'comparable' colors.
  5. [§2.3] Equation (1) defines B4200/3500 as Fν(4200)/Fν(3500), but the text later refers to the Balmer break as a jump; a brief note that the break is larger than 1 for older populations would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: simulated Balmer-break distributions are compared to the external JD1 observation without fitting; self-citations are to independently supported simulation products.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the JD1 comparison. Balmer break strengths are computed from star formation histories extracted from three published simulation suites (S16, FIRE-2, FirstLight), with synthetic SEDs generated using publicly benchmarked stellar population synthesis codes (starburst99, BPASS, Yggdrasil) and, for one variant, the SKIRT dust radiative-transfer code. The JD1 measurement is used only as an external observational anchor: the IRAC 4.5/3.6 ratio comes from Zheng et al. (2017), and the spectroscopic redshift plus [OIII] exclusion comes from Hashimoto et al. (2018). No parameter is fitted to the JD1 point, and the central claim that no simulated galaxy reaches the observed Balmer break strength is stated as a result after varying dust, escape fraction, IMF, magnification, and dust-to-metal ratio. The paper explicitly acknowledges the large JD1 error bar and the Katz et al. (2019) differential-dust alternative, which are robustness caveats rather than circular inputs. Self-citations to FIRE-2, FirstLight, S16, and Yggdrasil refer to externally tested simulation and spectral-synthesis products, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-citation chains; the conclusion would stand or fall on the independent simulation outputs and the external photometry. The skeptical concern about Balmer-line contamination of the 4.5 micron channel affects the observational interpretation of JD1, not the logical independence of the simulation prediction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the stellar population synthesis models, the representativeness of the simulated galaxy samples, and the interpretation of the JD1 IRAC colors as a Balmer break. No parameters are fitted to reproduce JD1; model choices are varied to test robustness.

free parameters (4)
  • V-band extinction in the fixed SMC dust-screen test = A_V = 0.5 mag
    Chosen by hand as an extreme dust test for FIRE-2 galaxies; the paper notes it is inconsistent with observed UV slopes.
  • Dust-to-metal ratio in SKIRT post-processing = 0.4 (default) and 0.8 (variant)
    Two values chosen to bracket dust opacity; 0.8 matches observed UV luminosity functions better.
  • Lyman continuum escape fraction = 0 (default) and 1 (test)
    Limiting cases chosen to test the effect of nebular continuum on the Balmer break.
  • IMF power-law slope in the high-mass range = alpha = 1.3, 2.3, 3.3
    Varied to test IMF effects; 2.3 is the standard Kroupa IMF.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis grids (Yggdrasil/starburst99, sunrise, BPASS) accurately represent the spectra of the simulated stellar particles.
    Used throughout Section 2.2 to convert SFHs into SEDs.
  • domain assumption The simulated galaxy samples are representative of the z~7-9 galaxy population at M_star > 10^8 M_sun.
    Central to the comparison in Section 3.3; the paper acknowledges limited volume and sample sizes.
  • domain assumption The SMC extinction curve is an appropriate default for dust reddening at these redshifts.
    Used in Section 2.2; the paper argues SMC is the most favorable for producing strong breaks, so it is a fair test.
  • domain assumption The redshift and Balmer break interpretation of JD1 from Hashimoto et al. (2018) is correct.
    Basis for the observational comparison in Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balmer breaks in simulated galaxies at z>6." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5V4JRKPB

@misc{pith2026190811393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balmer breaks in simulated galaxies at z>6},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5V4JRKPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11393}
}
abstract

Photometric observations of the spectroscopically confirmed $z\approx 9.1$ galaxy MACS1149-JD1 have indicated the presence of a prominent Balmer break in its spectral energy distribution, which may be interpreted as due to very large fluctuations in its past star formation activity. In this paper, we investigate to what extent contemporary simulations of high-redshift galaxies produce star formation rate variations sufficiently large to reproduce the observed Balmer break of MACS1149-JD1. We find that several independent galaxy simulations are unable to account for Balmer breaks of the inferred size, suggesting that MACS1149-JD1 either must be a very rare type of object or that our simulations are missing some key ingredient. We present predictions of spectroscopic Balmer break strength distributions for $z\approx 7-9$ galaxies that may be tested through observations with the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope and also discuss the impact that various assumptions on dust reddening, Lyman continuum leakage and deviations from a standard stellar initial mass function would have on the results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Yggdrasil SSP spectra generated with Padova-AGB models for 10 (cyan, top), 50 (orange, second from top), 200 (blue, second from bottom) and 800 (pink, bottom) Myr stel￾lar populations with metallicity Z = 0.02. The spectra have been shifted in the flux direction for clarity. The two dashed black lines mark wavelengths that are suitable to determine the Balmer break strength using JWST/NIRSpec. (but very similar) gri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of Balmer break strength (Fν (4200˚A)/Fν (3500˚A), B4200/3500 in the text) at z = 9 (top), z = 8 (middle) and z = 7 (bottom) of simulated galaxies with stellar masses M? ≥ 108 M . The green distribution shows the FIRE-2 galaxies with Yggdrasil Padova-AGB SSP grid and SMC dust reddening with a fixed extinction of 0.5 mag in the V-band. The blue distribution shows the FIRE-2 galaxies after post-processin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total stellar mass (left panel) and apparent UV magnitude (mAB(1500˚A); right panel) vs Balmer break strength (Fν (4200˚A)/Fν (3500˚A), B4200/3500 in the text) vs redshift (color axis) for the FIRE-2 simulations that have undergone post-processing in skirt (top) and the S16 galaxies (bottom). The total number of galaxies is 182, 513 and 1277 for the S16 simulation, and 150, 152 and 187 for the FIRE-2 simulation at r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Balmer break strength (Fν (4200˚A)/Fν (3500˚A), B4200/3500 in the text) for different dust treatments at z = 9. The top panel shows The FIRE-2 galaxies where spectra have been generated using the Yggdrasil Padova-AGB SSP grid without dust (light green) …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Balmer break strength (Fν (4200˚A)/Fν (3500˚A), B4200/3500 in the text) distributions for dust-free simulated galax￾ies at z = 9. The figure shows 150 galaxies from the FIRE-2 sim￾ulation where spectra have been generated using the Yggdrasil Padova-AGB SSP grid (light …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Balmer break strength (Fν (4200˚A)/Fν (3500˚A), B4200/3500 in the text) as a function of age (t), calculated using SSP spectra from a starburst99 Padova-AGB model using four different configurations of the IMF power-law (Equation 2). The blue dotted line shows a ‘paunc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Balmer break strengths as measured by the Spitzer/IRAC 4.5/3.6-µm flux ratio for simulated galaxies (with z = 9.1) with M? ≥ 108 (left) and M? ≥ 5 × 108 (right) compared to the observed Balmer break in JD1. The yellow dashed line and area show the Balmer break strength…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..115B 793, 115

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..115B 793, 115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/115 2014

  2. [2]

    Newly Discovered Bright z~9-10 Galaxies and Improved Constraints on Their Prevalence Using the Full CANDELS Area

    Bouwens R. J., Stefanon M., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Nanayakkara T., Roberts-Borsani G., Labbe' I., Smit R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190505202B p. arXiv:1905.05202

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    B., van Dokkum P

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

    doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  4. [4]

    C., Kinney A

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

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  5. [5]

    Camps P., Baes M., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 2015

  6. [6]

    Ceverino D., Klypin A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695..292C 695, 292

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/292 2009

  7. [7]

    S., Trujillo-Gomez S., Churchill C

    Ceverino D., Klypin A., Klimek E. S., Trujillo-Gomez S., Churchill C. W., Primack J., Dekel A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1545C 442, 1545

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu956 2014

  8. [8]

    Ceverino D., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1386 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2791C 470, 2791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1386 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    S., Glover S

    Ceverino D., Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2124 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4842C 480, 4842

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Glover S

    Ceverino D., Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz079 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1366C 484, 1366

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309250 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539..718C 539, 718

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..166C 837, 166

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..166C 837, 166

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Katz N., Weinberg D

    Fardal M. A., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Dav \'e R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11522.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..985F 379, 985

    2007

  8. [16]

    J., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2013, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RMxAA..49..137F 49, 137

    2013

  9. [17]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0117-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.557..392H 557, 392

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Hoag A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...39H 854, 39

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450...53H 450, 53

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450...53H 450, 53

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Huang K.-H., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817...11H 817, 11

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2920I 415, 2920

    Inoue A. K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18906.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2920I 415, 2920

    2011

  15. [23]

    A., Cox T

    Jonsson P., Groves B. A., Cox T. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16087.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403...17J 403, 17

    2010

  16. [24]

    S., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz281 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4054K 484, 4054

    Katz H., Laporte N., Ellis R. S., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz281 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4054K 484, 4054

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Kawamata R., Oguri M., Ishigaki M., Shimasaku K., Ouchi M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..114K 819, 114

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Kimm T., Cen R., Devriendt J., Dubois Y., Slyz A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1211 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2900K 451, 2900

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    V., Klypin A

    Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A. A., Khokhlov A. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313015 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJS..111...73K 111, 73

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  21. [29]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..123....3L 123, 3

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    Ma X., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1024 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1694M 478, 1694

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Ma X., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1844M 487, 1844

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Huang J.-S., Ashby M

    Mawatari K., Yamada T., Fazio G. G., Huang J.-S., Ashby M. L. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psw041 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASJ...68...46M 68, 46

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..108O 786, 108

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..108O 786, 108

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..129O 819, 129

    Oesch P. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..129O 819, 129

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    Pei Y. C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    M., et al., 2016, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI

    Pontoppidan K. M., et al., 2016, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI. p. 991016 ( @eprint arXiv 1707.02202 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2231768

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Raiter A., Schaerer D., Fosbury R. A. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015236 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..143R 823, 143

    Roberts-Borsani G. W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..143R 823, 143

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Okamoto T., Yoshida N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1423 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3563S 461, 3563

    Shimizu I., Inoue A. K., Okamoto T., Yoshida N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1423 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3563S 461, 3563

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364.1105S 364, 1105

    2005

  33. [41]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..469S 464, 469

    Stark D. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..469S 464, 469

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Trebitsch M., Blaizot J., Rosdahl J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1060 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..224T 470, 224

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Leitherer C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427866 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621..695V 621, 695

    V \'a zquez G. A., Leitherer C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427866 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621..695V 621, 695

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Draine B

    Weingartner J. C., Draine B. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..296W 548, 296

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    Zackrisson E., Rydberg C.-E., Schaerer D., \"O stlin G., Tuli M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740...13Z 740, 13

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Zheng W., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11446 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.489..406Z 489, 406

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Zheng W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..210Z 836, 210

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...68V 841, 68

    van Dokkum P., Conroy C., Villaume A., Brodie J., Romanowsky A. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...68V 841, 68

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.