Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 104 references

The JWST EXCELS survey: tracing the chemical enrichment pathways of high-redshift star-forming galaxies with O, Ar and Ne abundances

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that eight star-forming galaxies at z≈4 have an average Ar/O ratio 0.65±0.10 times solar—a ~3 sigma deficit—while Ne/O stays solar, indicating argon is not yet built up because of delayed Type Ia supernova enrichment.

desk verdict A careful JWST abundance study that roughly doubles the z>2 Ar/O sample, but the headline sub-solar Ar/O deficit hinges on an unverified T_e[S III] scaling relation and could vanish under a plausible systematic offset. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11837 v3 pith:I5Q4K73I submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA

T. M. Stanton , F. Cullen , A. C. Carnall , D. Scholte , K. Z. Arellano-Córdova , D. J. McLeod , R. Begley , C. T. Donnan
show 6 more authors
J. S. Dunlop M. L. Hamadouche R. J. McLure A. E. Shapley C. Bondestam S. Stevenson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyabundanceshigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopyTypeIasupernovaecore-collapsechemicalenrichmentargon-to-oxygenratioelectrontemperature
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 uses JWST/NIRSpec spectra of eight star-forming galaxies at redshift $\langle z \rangle = 4.0$ to measure oxygen, argon, and neon abundances from faint emission lines. It finds that the average argon-to-oxygen ratio is $0.65 \pm 0.10$ times the solar value, a roughly $3\sigma$ deficit, while the neon-to-oxygen ratio is $1.07 \pm 0.12$ times solar. The authors interpret the argon shortfall as evidence that the interstellar medium of these young galaxies is still dominated by core-collapse supernova products, with argon not yet built up because a substantial fraction of its production is delayed through Type Ia supernovae. The result matters because Ar/O can trace the delayed enrichment from Type Ia supernovae using emission lines that JWST can observe, without the deep ultraviolet continuum required for iron abundances.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the direct-method abundance analysis built on electron temperatures: the [O III] $\lambda$4363/$\lambda$5007 ratio fixes the high-ionization-zone temperature, locally calibrated scaling relations assign the low- and intermediate-zone temperatures ($T_e[\mathrm{O\,II}] = 0.7\,T_e[\mathrm{O\,III}] + 3000$ K and $T_e[\mathrm{S\,III}] = 0.83\,T_e[\mathrm{O\,III}] + 1700$ K), and the [Ar III] $\lambda$7135 and [Ne III] $\lambda$3870 lines yield the observed argon and neon ions. Ionization correction factors from Izotov et al. (2006) complete the unseen Ar$^{+}$ and Ar$^{3+}$ and Ne$^{3+}$ stages, converting the line ratios into total abundances. This turns the single measurable ratio Ar/O into a tracer of the relative contribution of core-collapse versus Type Ia supernovae to the interstellar medium, with Ne/O serving as a control ratio expected to track oxygen.

What would settle it

A deep JWST spectrum of a $z \simeq 4$ star-forming galaxy that detects the [S III] $\lambda$6312 auroral line would give an independent intermediate-zone temperature; if $T_e[\mathrm{S\,III}]$ comes out substantially below $0.83\,T_e[\mathrm{O\,III}] + 1700$ K, as it does for the Sunburst Arc, the inferred Ar$^{2+}$ abundance rises and the reported Ar/O deficit would weaken or disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the inverse-variance weighted average of the eight EXCELS galaxies is $\log(\mathrm{Ar/O}) = -2.50 \pm 0.07$, corresponding to $\mathrm{Ar/O} = 0.65 \pm 0.10\,(\mathrm{Ar/O})_\odot$, a roughly $3\sigma$ offset below solar; in contrast, the average neon-to-oxygen ratio is consistent with the solar ratio ($1.07 \pm 0.12$ times solar). On the paper's interpretation this is exactly the pattern expected if argon is an $\alpha$-element with a significant Type Ia supernova production channel, about $34$ per cent in current yield models, while neon tracks oxygen as a core-collapse product. Young galaxies at $z \simeq 4$ have not yet accumulated enough Type Ia enrichment, so their interstellar medium is dominated by core-collapse supernova yields. The sample average falls at the knee of the Milky Way chemical evolution track and at the extension of the M31 planetary-nebula sequence in the $\log(\mathrm{O/Ar})$--$\log(\mathrm{Ar/H})$ plane, connecting these early systems to the delayed-enrichment pathway seen locally.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the locally calibrated electron-temperature scaling relations remain valid at $z \simeq 4$, because the paper only measures the [O III] temperature directly; if the intermediate-zone temperature is actually colder than assumed, the derived argon abundance rises and the Ar/O deficit shrinks toward solar.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the deficit is real, the interstellar medium of $z \simeq 4$ star-forming galaxies is predominantly enriched by core-collapse supernova products, with Type Ia supernova products still sub-dominant.
  • Ar/O becomes a practical high-redshift analogue of O/Fe that can be measured from JWST emission lines rather than from deep far-ultraviolet continuum, greatly increasing the number of galaxies in which SNe Ia enrichment can be tracked.
  • The solar Ne/O ratio in the same galaxies confirms neon follows oxygen, validating the use of Ne/O as a control element and ruling out a general anomaly in all $\alpha$-element ratios.
  • Agreement with the Milky Way chemical evolution model and the M31 planetary-nebula sequence implies the same delayed-enrichment pathway operating locally is already visible at $z \simeq 4$.
  • Future moderate-depth JWST spectroscopy can extend this measurement to larger samples and higher redshifts, testing whether the Ar/O deficit evolves as Type Ia supernovae begin to contribute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Ar deficit holds up, the knee in the $\log(\mathrm{O/Ar})$--$\log(\mathrm{Ar/H})$ plane could serve as a star-formation-history clock in the same way the O/Fe knee does; galaxies with older stellar populations at fixed metallicity should show higher Ar/O, a prediction the paper does not test.
  • The outliers with near-solar Ar/O, EXCELS-121806 and the Sunburst Arc, could share a common temperature-structure cause rather than exotic enrichment; comparing their [S III] $\lambda$6312 temperatures would discriminate between these explanations.
  • Because oxygen depletes onto dust while argon and neon do not, an independent oxygen tracer that sidesteps depletion could move the Ar/O offset to larger significance and strengthen the SNe Ia delay interpretation.
  • Selecting galaxies by specific star-formation rate at fixed redshift would provide a sharper test: if the Ar deficit comes from delayed SNe Ia, galaxies with lower specific star-formation rates should already show Ar/O closer to solar.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents direct-method electron-temperature abundance measurements of O, Ar, and Ne for eight JWST EXCELS star-forming galaxies with redshifts 1.8 < z < 5.3 (median z ~ 4.0). Using [O III] lambda4363/lambda5007 for T_e, and the Garnett (1992) and Campbell et al. (1986) scaling relations for the intermediate and low-ionization zones, it derives total O/H and ionic Ar++/H and Ne++/H, applying ICFs from Izotov et al. (2006). The sample-averaged inverse-variance weighted log(Ar/O) = -2.50 +/- 0.07 (Ar/O = 0.65 +/- 0.10 solar) is claimed as a ~3-sigma sub-solar offset, while log(Ne/O) = -0.60 +/- 0.05 is consistent with solar. The authors interpret this as evidence that z~4 ISMs are dominated by CCSNe products with a delayed SNe Ia contribution to Ar, compare the measurements to the Kobayashi et al. (2020b) chemical evolution model and M31 PNe, and discuss systematic uncertainties from atomic data, ICFs, dust depletion, and the assumed temperature structure.

Significance. If correct, the result provides one of the first multi-element (O, Ar, Ne) direct-method abundance sets at z~4 and strengthens the case that alpha-element ratios can trace the onset of SNe Ia enrichment. The paper is careful: it uses PyNeb with modern atomic data, propagates Monte Carlo uncertainties, tests alternative ICFs and atomic data (Section 5.1), discusses dust depletion (Section 5.2), and explicitly acknowledges the T_e-structure caveat (Section 5.3). The Ne/O ratio serves as a sensible control, and the comparison with local CLASSY galaxies and M31 PNe is useful. The sample, though small, is a meaningful increase over previous direct Ar/O measurements at z>2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1); Section 5.3; Table 3] The headline claim of a ~3-sigma sub-solar Ar/O ratio does not include the systematic uncertainty in the assumed T_e[S III] - T_e[O III] scaling relation. The Ar2+ abundance, which drives Ar/O, is derived using T_e[S III] from Garnett (1992) with only 1300 K of random scatter added in quadrature. As the authors note, Welch et al. (2024) measured T_e[S III] << T_e[O III] in the Sunburst Arc, and an alternative temperature structure could shift the weighted mean log(Ar/O) by roughly 0.2-0.3 dex, which would bring it into agreement with the solar value. Because the Ne/O ratio is measured in the high-ionization zone with the directly observed T_e[O III], the Ne/O control does not certify Ar/O. The paper should propagate an explicit systematic term (e.g., a plausible range of T_e[S III] relations) through the weighted average and quote the resulting significance, or clearly condition the headline result on the validity of the local T_e scaling relations.
  2. [Abstract; Section 4.1.1; Section 5.1] The quoted uncertainty of the headline result (log(Ar/O) = -2.50 +/- 0.07; Ar/O = 0.65 +/- 0.10 solar) reflects only the internal Monte Carlo scatter; systematic contributions from atomic data, ICF choice and dispersion, and temperature scaling are discussed qualitatively but are not folded into the reported significance. Section 5.1 shows that alternative atomic data and ICFs move the average to log(Ar/O) < -2.40, a ~2-sigma offset, but this conditional statement does not appear in the abstract or conclusions. The authors should provide a combined systematic error budget and state the resulting significance, so that the '3-sigma' claim is traceable to a well-defined error model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'measurements of O/Ar at z>2' while the rest of the paper consistently uses 'Ar/O'; the notation should be made uniform.
  2. [Section 2.1] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'We run the default level 1 configuration except for turning on advanced snowball rejection and make use of of the CRDS_CTX...'; 'of of' should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.1.1 and Section 6] The offset from solar is quoted as '~3.5 sigma' in Section 4.1.1 and as '~3 sigma' in the conclusions; these numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [Table 2 and Appendix A] To facilitate reproducibility, the paper would benefit from a table listing the measured emission-line fluxes (or at least [Ar III] lambda7135 and [Ne III] lambda3869 fluxes with uncertainties and S/N); the zoom-in figures in Appendix A are useful but do not provide numerical values.
  5. [Section 5.2 and Section 6] The phrase 'these affects can alter' should be 'these effects can alter' (appearing both in Section 5.2 and in point (v) of the conclusions).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ar/O deficit is an independent measurement from JWST spectra, compared to external models and samples; the disclosed T_e[S III] scaling caveat is a systematic risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The paper measures the [O III] λ4363/λ5007 ratio to obtain T_e[O III], then infers T_e[S III] and T_e[O II] from the external Garnett (1992) and Campbell (1986) scaling relations, adding scatter estimates from Rogers et al. (2021). The Ar2+ abundance is converted to Ar/H using Izotov et al. (2006) ICFs, and Section 5.1 explicitly tests alternative ICFs (Pérez-Montero et al. 2007; Amayo et al. 2021) and alternative atomic data, finding average log(Ar/O) values that remain ≃2σ below solar. The sub-solar conclusion is therefore not forced by a single fitted correction. The solar scale is taken from Asplund et al. (2021), and the Kobayashi et al. (2020b) model is compared on that model's own solar scale, so neither the solar scale nor the SNe Ia fraction is fitted to the EXCELS data. The paper's own Section 5.3 caveat, 'A caveat to the results presented here is that we assume current T_e−T_e relations are valid at z ≃ 4', identifies the genuine vulnerability: if the true T_e[S III] at z~4 is systematically different, the Ar/H estimates could shift and the deficit could weaken. But that is an unverified external assumption, not a definitional identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the paper does not use the Ar/O result to calibrate the T_e relations or the ICFs. Self-citations (Carnall et al. 2024; Stanton et al. 2024; Arellano-Córdova et al. 2024a,b) supply survey data, SED fitting, and local comparison samples, but none is load-bearing as a uniqueness theorem or as the source of the Ar/O prediction. The Ne/O control is an internal consistency check, and the paper acknowledges it does not certify the T_e[S III] assumption. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are invented. The analysis relies on standard atomic data and published scaling relations. The main unverified inputs are the temperature scaling relations at high redshift, the choice of ICFs, and the extinction curve. The sample is also selected toward star-forming galaxies with high S/N detections, so the average may not represent the full z ~ 4 population.

free parameters (3)
  • Case B electron temperature (T_e = 12000 K) and density (n_e = 300 cm^-3) for Balmer ratios = 12000 K, 300 cm^-3
    Chosen as approximate average values across the sample for the theoretical Balmer decrement used to derive E(B-V). The reddening correction affects all line fluxes and therefore the abundance ratios.
  • Fixed density n_e = 300 cm^-3 for EXCELS-52422 and other unconstrained sources = 300 cm^-3
    Assumed when the [S II] doublet is not significantly detected. The paper argues the ionic abundances of Ar2+ and O2+ are insensitive to density in the assumed range.
  • Additional quadrature uncertainties on T_e[S III] and T_e[O II] scaling relations = 1300 K and 1100 K
    Adopted from Rogers et al. (2021) to account for scatter in the Garnett (1992) and Campbell et al. (1986) relations. These are calibration uncertainties rather than fitted values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Garnett (1992) T_e[O III]-T_e[S III] scaling relation is valid at z ~ 4.
    Used in Section 3.1 to assign the intermediate ionization zone temperature, which directly sets the Ar2+ abundance. The paper explicitly notes in Section 5.3 that the validity of T_e-T_e relations at high redshift is not yet verified.
  • domain assumption The Campbell et al. (1986) T_e[O III]-T_e[O II] scaling relation is valid at z ~ 4.
    Used in Section 3.1 to assign the low ionization zone temperature, which affects the O+ abundance and hence total O/H.
  • domain assumption The Izotov et al. (2006) ICFs are appropriate for high-redshift galaxies.
    Used in Section 3.3 to correct for unseen ionization states of Ar and Ne. The paper tests two alternative ICF prescriptions and finds only 0.04 dex differences.
  • domain assumption The Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction curve applies to high-redshift nebular regions.
    Adopted in Section 2.3.3 for Balmer decrement reddening corrections, with the caveat that a galaxy-by-galaxy variation in the attenuation curve can exist.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JWST EXCELS survey: tracing the chemical enrichment pathways of high-redshift star-forming galaxies with O, Ar and Ne abundances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5Q4K73I

@misc{pith2026241111837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JWST EXCELS survey: tracing the chemical enrichment pathways of high-redshift star-forming galaxies with O, Ar and Ne abundances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5Q4K73I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11837}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of eight star-forming galaxies with $\langle z \rangle = 4.0$ from the JWST EXCELS survey for which we obtain robust chemical abundance estimates for the $\alpha$-elements O, Ne and Ar. The $\alpha$-elements are primarily produced via core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) which should result in $\alpha$-element abundance ratios that do not vary significantly across cosmic time. However, Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) models predict an excess production of Ar relative to O and Ne. The Ar/O abundance ratio can therefore be used as a tracer of the relative enrichment of CCSNe and SNe Ia in galaxies. Our sample significantly increases the number of sources with measurements of ${\rm Ar/O}$ at $z > 2$, and we find that our sample exhibits sub-solar Ar/O ratios on average, with $\rm{Ar/O} = 0.65 \pm 0.10 \, (\rm{Ar/O})_{\odot}$. In contrast, the average Ne/O abundance is fully consistent with the solar ratio, with $\rm{Ne/O} = 1.07 \pm 0.12 \, (\rm{Ne/O})_{\odot}$. Our results support a scenario in which Ar has not had time to build up in the interstellar medium of young high-redshift galaxies, which are dominated by CCSNe enrichment. We show that these abundance estimates are in good agreement with recent Milky Way chemical evolution models, and with Ar/O trends observed for planetary nebulae in the Andromeda galaxy. These results highlight the potential for using multiple element abundance ratios to constrain the chemical enrichment pathways of early galaxies with JWST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of one galaxy from our sample (EXCELS-40081, 𝑧 = 3.955) which features all of the required emission lines needed to determine the Ar/O and Ne/O abundance ratios. The top two panels show the NIRSpec/G235M 2D and 1D spectra of this source, and the bottom two panels show the same for NIRSpec/G395M. Prominent emission lines are labelled in each 1D spectrum. Within the NIRSpec/G235M 1D panel, the inset panels … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The log (Ar/O) abundance as a function of redshift for our sample (blue hexagons) compared other to high-redshift samples from the literature. We show the median average error bar in with an unfilled blue hexagon in the bottom right. The inverse-variance weighted average of our measurements is log (Ar/O) = −2.50 ± 0.07 and is shown with a red star at the median redshift of the sample (𝑧 = 4.0). For comparison, we sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Ar/O ratio as a function of O/H for the EXCELS galaxies (blue hexagons). We compare to other high-redshift systems with reported Ar/O and O/H ratios using the same symbols as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the left panel we compare the O/Ar and Ar/H abundance ratios of our sample (blue hexagons) and the measurements of Bhattacharya et al. (2024) (purple diamonds), Rogers et al. (2024) (green square), and Welch et al. (2024) (orange triangle) to the Kobayashi et al. (2…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The log (Ne/O) abundance as a function of redshift for our sample (blue hexagons). We show the median average error bar in with an unfilled blue hexagon in the bottom right. For comparison, we show the direct-method measurements of Arellano-Córdova et al. (2022) (purpl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probability density histograms highlighting the differences in our abundances from local samples. In each panel we subtract the corresponding solar value to more clearly show the difference in each abundance ratio. In the top panel we compare the Ne/O measurements of o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amayo A., Delgado-Inglada G., Stasi \'n ska G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2361A 505, 2361

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1467 2021

  2. [2]

    H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    Andrews B. H., Martini P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..140A 765, 140

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  3. [3]

    Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1759 2020

  4. [4]

    Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ab2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..23A 940, L23

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ab2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940L..23A 940, L23

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9ab2 2022

  5. [5]

    Z., et al., 2024a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241210557A p

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., et al., 2024a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241210557A p. arXiv:2412.10557

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Z., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...98A 968, 98

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...98A 968, 98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad34cf

  7. [7]

    Arnaboldi M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.109A 666, A109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244258 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.141A 653, A141

    Asplund M., Amarsi A. M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.141A 653, A141

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    A., Skillman E

    Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Moustakas J., Johnson-Groh M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...16B 806, 16

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Chisholm J., Erb D

    Berg D. A., Chisholm J., Erb D. K., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Olivier G. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..170B 922, 170

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261...31B 261, 31

    Berg D. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261...31B 261, 31

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    arXiv:2408.13396

    Bhattacharya S., Arnaboldi M., Gerhard O., Kobayashi C., Saha K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240813396B p. arXiv:2408.13396

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brammer G., 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Coleman T

    Branch M. A., Coleman T. F., Li Y., 1999, @doi [SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing] 10.1137/S1064827595289108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999SJSC...21....1B 21, 1

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2003

  9. [17]

    Campbell A., Terlevich R., Melnick J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/223.4.811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..811C 223, 811

    1986 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..325C 534, 325

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Rudie G

    Chartab N., Newman A. B., Rudie G. C., Blanc G. A., Kelson D. D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...73C 960, 73

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Clarke L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfedb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...81C 957, 81

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Sanders R

    Clarke L., Shapley A. E., Sanders R. L., Topping M. W., Brammer G. B., Bento T., Reddy N. A., Kehoe E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ba4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..133C 977, 133

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    V., Pogge R

    Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Moustakas J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830....4C 830, 4

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Dunlop J

    Cullen F., Cirasuolo M., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Bowler R. A. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2300C 440, 2300

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Cullen F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.2038C 487, 2038

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Cullen F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505..903C 505, 903

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Curti M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..75C 684, A75

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Shapley A

    Erb D. K., Shapley A. E., Pettini M., Steidel C. C., Reddy N. A., Adelberger K. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..813E 644, 813

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., 2004, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 , 87, 1

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Mendoza C., Zeippen C

    Galavis M. E., Mendoza C., Zeippen C. J., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..111..347G 111, 347

    1995

  24. [32]

    R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    Garnett D. R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    1992 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Dopita M

    Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..153....9G 153, 9

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    Gutkin J., Charlot S., Bruzual G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1757G 462, 1757

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Johnson B

    Hao C.-N., Kennicutt R. C., Johnson B. D., Calzetti D., Dale D. A., Moustakas J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741..124H 741, 124

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

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

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

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Horne K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..609H 98, 609

    1986 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    Irimia A., Froese Fischer C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1238/Physica.Regular.071a00172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhyS...71..172I 71, 172

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Isobe Y., Ouchi M., Nakajima K., Harikane Y., Ono Y., Xu Y., Zhang Y., Umeda H., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..139I 956, 139

    doi

  33. [41]

    Isobe Y., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..100I 959, 100

    doi

  34. [42]

    I., Stasi \'n ska G., Meynet G., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Stasi \'n ska G., Meynet G., Guseva N. G., Thuan T. X., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448..955I 448, 955

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...37J 262, 37

    James B. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...37J 262, 37

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Jeong M.-S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abba7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L..16J 902, L16

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Kashino D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac399e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...82K 925, 82

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Kaufman V., Sugar J., 1986, @doi [Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data] 10.1063/1.555775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986JPCRD..15..321K 15, 321

    1986 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Ferland G

    Kisielius R., Storey P. J., Ferland G. J., Keenan F. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14989.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..903K 397, 903

    2009

  40. [48]

    Kobayashi C., Leung S.-C., Nomoto K., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895..138K 895, 138

    doi

  41. [49]

    I., Lugaro M., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    doi

  42. [50]

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

    2001

  43. [51]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...521L..53L 521, L53

    Lara-L \'o pez M. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...521L..53L 521, L53

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    Lodders K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591.1220L 591, 1220

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Maiolino R., Mannucci F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&ARv..27....3M 27, 3

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...488..463M 488, 463

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    Mannucci F., Cresci G., Maiolino R., Marconi A., Gnerucci A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.2115M 408, 2115

    2010

  49. [57]

    Marques-Chaves R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..30M 681, A30

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...11M 956, 11

    Maseda M. V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...11M 956, 11

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    arXiv:2405.15859

    McClymont W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240515859M p. arXiv:2405.15859

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Lee T.-G., Ludlow J

    McLaughlin B. M., Lee T.-G., Ludlow J. A., Landi E., Loch S. D., Pindzola M. S., Ballance C. P., 2011, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/0953-4075/44/17/175206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JPhB...44q5206M 44, 175206

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    M \'e ndez-Delgado J. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Mendoza C., 1983, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1007/978-94-009-7094-6_16 , 103, 143

    1983 doi

  55. [63]

    J., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/202.4.981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.202..981M 202, 981

    Mendoza C., Zeippen C. J., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/202.4.981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.202..981M 202, 981

    1983 doi

  56. [64]

    Mingozzi M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac952c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939..110M 939, 110

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Hidalgo-G \'a mez A

    Miranda-P \'e rez B. E., Hidalgo-G \'a mez A. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952...76M 952, 76

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Moustakas J., Buhler J., Scholte D., Dey B., Khederlarian A., 2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    2023

  59. [67]

    R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.124M 671, A124

    Mucciarelli A., Minelli A., Bellazzini M., Lardo C., Romano D., Origlia L., Ferraro F. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.124M 671, A124

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Loch S

    Munoz Burgos J. M., Loch S. D., Ballance C. P., Boivin R. F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...500.1253M 500, 1253

    2009 doi

  61. [69]

    Nakane M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84e810.1134/S1063773708080045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976..122N 976, 122

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Peimbert A., Peimbert M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756L..14P 756, L14

    Pe \ n a-Guerrero M. A., Peimbert A., Peimbert M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756L..14P 756, L14

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Peimbert A., Peimbert M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..791P 724, 791

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    F., Contini T., D \' az \'A

    P \'e rez-Montero E., H \"a gele G. F., Contini T., D \' az \'A . I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12213.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381..125P 381, 125

    2007

  65. [73]

    C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..363P 58, 363

    P \'e roux C., Howk J. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..363P 58, 363

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902..123R 902, 123

    Reddy N. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902..123R 902, 123

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    Rogers N. S. J., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Moustakas J., Croxall K. V., Sun J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915...21R 915, 21

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    Rogers N. S. J., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Croxall K. V., Bartlett J., Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Moustakas J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac947d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...44R 939, 44

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    Rogers N. S. J., Strom A. L., Rudie G. C., Trainor R. F., Raptis M., von Raesfeld C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2f37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..12R 964, L12

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...11S 859, 11

    Salim S., Boquien M., Lee J. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...11S 859, 11

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...19S 914, 19

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...19S 914, 19

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240805273S p

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240805273S p. arXiv:2408.05273

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    D., Sembach K

    Savage B. D., Sembach K. R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ARA&A..34..279S 34, 279

    1996 doi

  74. [82]

    arXiv:2404.09015

    Scarlata C., Hayes M., Panagia N., Mehta V., Haardt F., Bagley M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240409015S p. arXiv:2404.09015

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    Scholte D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2341S 535, 2341

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab385a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881L..35S 881, L35

    Shapley A. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab385a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881L..35S 881, L35

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    E., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240700157S p

    Shapley A. E., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240700157S p. arXiv:2407.00157

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    J., 2004, in Witt A

    Sofia U. J., 2004, in Witt A. N., Clayton G. C., Draine B. T., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 309, Astrophysics of Dust. p. 393

    2004

  79. [87]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    S., Steinhardt C

    Speagle J. S., Steinhardt C. L., Capak P. L., Silverman J. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...15S 214, 15

    2014 doi

  81. [89]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3102S 532, 3102

    Stanton T. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3102S 532, 3102

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    C., Strom A

    Steidel C. C., Strom A. L., Pettini M., Rudie G. C., Reddy N. A., Trainor R. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..159S 826, 159

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Hummer D

    Storey P. J., Hummer D. G., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.272...41S 272, 41

    1995 doi

  84. [92]

    J., Sochi T., Badnell N

    Storey P. J., Sochi T., Badnell N. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3028S 441, 3028

    2014 doi

  85. [93]

    L., Rudie G

    Strom A. L., Rudie G. C., Steidel C. C., Trainor R. F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac38a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..116S 925, 116

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad07dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..11S 958, L11

    Strom A. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad07dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..11S 958, L11

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    Tayal S. S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    2010 doi

  88. [96]

    W., Shapley A

    Topping M. W., Shapley A. E., Reddy N. A., Sanders R. L., Coil A. L., Kriek M., Mobasher B., Siana B., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4430T 495, 4430

    doi

  89. [97]

    W., Shapley A

    Topping M. W., Shapley A. E., Reddy N. A., Sanders R. L., Coil A. L., Kriek M., Mobasher B., Siana B., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.1652T 499, 1652

    doi

  90. [98]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240719009T p

    Topping M. W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240719009T p. arXiv:2407.19009

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  92. [100]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    Watanabe K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...50W 962, 50

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    H., Andrews B

    Weinberg D. H., Andrews B. H., Freudenburg J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..183W 837, 183

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    arXiv:2405.06631

    Welch B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240506631W p. arXiv:2405.06631

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    A., Sobolenko M., V \' lchez J

    Zinchenko I. A., Sobolenko M., V \' lchez J. M., Kehrig C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..28Z 690, A28

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.