Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 100 references

ESpRESSO -- Forward modeling Roman Space Telescope spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ESpRESSO produces realistic simulated Roman grism exposures from Hubble imaging and model spectra, creating a mock deep survey for testing spectral extraction software before launch.

desk verdict Useful Roman grism forward model, but the abstract's 'high LAE completeness' and 'half the detector array' claims outrun what the paper actually demonstrates. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08883 v1 pith:2QQIBJXV submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Austen Gabrielpillai , Isak G. B. Wold , Sangeeta Malhotra , James Rhoads , Guangjun Gao , Mainak Singha , Anton M. Koekemoer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords RomanSpaceTelescopeWFIgrismslitlessspectroscopysimulationforwardmodelingLyman-alphaemitterssourceinjectiondetectordistortionmocksurvey
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

ESpRESSO is a forward model of Roman's Wide Field Instrument grism that turns a three-dimensional cube of flux density, built from deep Hubble imaging and per-object model spectra, into synthetic nine-detector grism exposures. The paper's central claim is that these simulated scenes are realistic enough, including field-angle-dependent optical distortions, three spectral orders, source injection of Lyman-alpha emitters, and photon noise, to serve as a mock deep Roman grism survey for developing and testing spectral analysis tools before launch. Using this machinery, the authors also argue that the compact (0,0) order images cannot easily be mistaken for true emission-line pairs, and that bright foreground sources raise the background for about ten percent of grism pixels, so sky-limited assumptions hold for the rest. The result is a public simulation suite spanning half of the 18-detector array at 25 position angles with 10 ks exposures, meant as test data for recovery and de-confliction algorithms.

What carries the argument

The central object is ESpRESSO's forward-modeling pipeline for the Wide Field Instrument grism, a dispersing optic whose undeviated wavelength is 1.55 μm and whose three in-focus orders are (0,0), (1,1), and (2,2). The machinery centers on a precomputed flux-density data cube over position and wavelength, driven by a 44-term polynomial that maps sky coordinates and wavelength to detector pixel coordinates for each sensor chip, plus a piecewise response function that includes position-dependent blue- and red-edge cutoffs. This lets the code place every source pixel's flux at the correct dispersed location for each order and each roll angle, so scene crowding, overlap between orders, and contamination statistics emerge directly from the simulation rather than being assumed. It is also what makes the pipeline modular: any of the optical parameters can be swapped for on-orbit measurements after launch, and custom sources enter through the same cube construction, so the same engine produces both the foreground scene and isolated injected-object images.

What would settle it

Take laboratory or early-on-orbit calibration images of a bright star taken through the Roman grism at several field positions, and compare the measured (1,1) trace position at each wavelength with ESpRESSO's Eq. 6–12 prediction; trace residuals larger than roughly one WFI pixel (about 0.11 arcsec) would mean the 44-term distortion model does not match the flight instrument. Separately, measure the blue- and red-edge response across a detector and check whether the 1:9 blue-to-red ratio of the (0,0) artifact and the roughly 10% foreground-contaminated pixel fraction survive in real data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Roman WFI grism data can be emulated before launch at pixel-level fidelity by combining the best available imaging and spectra. ESpRESSO builds an (x, y, λ) data cube by assigning each object's model spectrum to the image pixels belonging to that object, then maps sky coordinates to detector pixels with a 44-term polynomial per detector (Eq. 6), applies a wavelength- and position-dependent response with blue- and red-edge cutoffs (Eqs. 9–12), and assigns flux by nearest-neighbor sampling at 3.7x spatial and 11x spectral oversampling. Three in-focus orders, (0,0), (1,1), and (2,2), are produced, along with dithers and roll angles, and photon noise is added assuming a 0.8 counts/s sky background. The paper demonstrates custom source injection with a star, an emission-line galaxy, and 5,000 synthetic Lyman-alpha emitters, and uses the simulated scenes to conclude that the (0,0) artifact spectrum is unlikely to be confused with real line pairs and that roughly 10% of grism pixels are significantly boosted by foreground sources.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation trusts the grism as designed rather than as it will test out in space; if the real instrument bends or focuses light differently at any wavelength or field position, every simulated spectrum position and the paper's crowding and off-order confusion conclusions shift with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released 25-position-angle, 10 ks-per-angle suite provides a ready-made benchmark for testing spectral extraction and source recovery software against a deep Roman grism survey, with injected Lyman-alpha emitters whose true redshifts, line fluxes, and continuum levels are known by construction.
  • The (0,0) order's double-peaked structure, with 29-pixel separation, 319 Å observed separation, and a 1:9 blue-to-red flux ratio, is very unlikely to be mistaken for a real emission-line pair, because known doublets would require physically implausible brightness ratios or be ruled out by other nearby lines.
  • Foreground contaminants significantly elevate the background for about 10% of grism pixels, implying that sky-limited noise assumptions are valid for roughly 90% of the field and that de-confliction algorithms are needed for the remaining 10%.
  • Because the optical model is parameterized and replaceable, the same pipeline can be re-run with post-launch calibration data to update the mock observations as the real instrument's performance becomes known.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader can extend the 25-position-angle suite into a completeness experiment: inject the same Lyman-alpha emitter at many fluxes and redshifts, run any extraction code, and map recovery rate against position angle and dither to identify which roll angles maximize the clean area.
  • Because the code's optical parameters are replaceable, the same pipeline is a natural testbed for on-orbit calibration; once flight data exist, re-running with measured parameters would tell how much of the 10% contamination and the 1:9 off-order ratio survive reality.
  • The 10% foreground-boosted pixel fraction should be read as tied to the depth and density of the input field; a shallower survey or a different line of sight would shift the number, so survey planners may want this calculation repeated for other deep fields as they become available.
  • The off-order confusion analysis suggests a concrete algorithmic check: run source detection on the released (0,0) plus (1,1) scenes and count how often an artifact is classified as an emission-line pair; the resulting misclassification rate is the quantitative form of the paper's qualitative conclusion.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ESpRESSO, a forward-modeling pipeline for Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope WFI grism observations. The pipeline combines HST/CANDELS F160W COSMOS imaging with 3D-HST/EAZY spectral energy distributions to construct a wavelength-resolved datacube, then applies per-SCA sky-to-detector distortion polynomials, simulates the (0,0), (1,1), and (2,2) grism orders, and adds Poisson noise to produce 10 ks exposures at 25 position angles, with 12 of those having paired positive and negative dithers. Custom sources, including 5,000 synthetic Ly-alpha emitters, can be injected into the foreground scenes. The paper also presents an argument that (0,0)-order artifacts are unlikely to be confused with true emission-line pairs, and a crowding analysis concluding that foreground sources significantly elevate the background for about 10% of grism pixels. The central advertised product is a mock deep Roman grism survey with 'high (synthetic) LAE completeness' for developing spectral extraction tools.

Significance. If the completeness claim were validated, ESpRESSO would be a genuinely useful community resource: it is the first Roman-specific grism forward model described here to include field-angle-dependent distortions, three spectral orders, source injection, and noise within a modular, parameter-file-driven pipeline. The off-order confusion argument in Sec. 4.2 is internally consistent and useful for survey planning, as is the 10% foreground-contamination estimate in Sec. 4.3. The planned public release of simulated grism scenes is a concrete contribution to Roman preparatory work. The paper's main limitation is that its headline claim of high synthetic LAE completeness is asserted rather than demonstrated: no source-extraction or line-detection test is run on the noisy delivered images, so the central utility of the 25-PA suite as a completeness-testing mock survey is unverified. This is fixable with an end-to-end recovery experiment, but it is a load-bearing gap in the current manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 3.4.1; Sec. 3.5; Sec. 5] The abstract and conclusions claim that the 25-PA, 10 ks suite provides 'high (synthetic) LAE completeness', but no completeness fraction is ever computed or reported. Section 3.4.1 describes injecting 5,000 LAEs with a single Sersic stamp and a Gaussian-line-plus-power-law SED, and Sec. 3.5 adds Poisson noise, but the paper never runs a source-extraction or line-search pipeline on the resulting noisy images. The only illustration is a single z=9.5 LAE shown in isolation in Fig. 7, which cannot establish completeness against crowding, noise, and off-order contamination. Please add an end-to-end recovery test and report completeness as a function of Ly-alpha flux, equivalent width, and redshift, or revise the abstract and conclusions to claim only that the scenes are suitable for developing extraction tools, not that they have demonstrated high completeness.
  2. [Abstract vs Sec. 4.4(2)] The delivered survey area is described inconsistently. The abstract promises 'a simulation suite of half of the eighteen detector array', while Sec. 4.4(2) states that the current simulations have 'a total area coverage of ~2-3 Roman SCAs per position angle, nowhere near the full detector array'. These statements cannot both describe the released products. Please specify exactly how many SCAs are covered per position angle, how the 25 PAs combine into total unique sky area, and reconcile the abstract wording with Sec. 4.4(2).
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 10] The quantitative claim that foreground contamination affects about 10% of grism pixels and that the sky-limited assumption is valid for about 90% of the field is presented without uncertainty or PA-to-PA variation. The caption of Fig. 10 says 'For our simulated grism extra-galactic scene', suggesting a single realization, even though the paper generates 25 PAs and paired dithers. Since this 10% figure is a headline result for survey design, please report the distribution across PAs and dithers, or explicitly state that it is a single-representative-scene estimate with no quoted uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract has several wording and punctuation issues that should be corrected: 'nine detector grism observation' is unclear (nine detectors or one detector?), 'which model field angle dependent optical distortions' should read 'which models ...', '12 with analogous positive and negative dithers,' is a sentence fragment, and the exposure-time clause ends with a comma rather than a period.
  2. [Captions of Figs. 5 and 6] The captions contain incomplete placeholder values: 'a bright, broadband star (m_F160W =, spectral type )' and 'an emission line galaxy (ELG; m_F160W =)' have blank magnitude and spectral-type entries. Please fill in the actual values or remove the parentheticals.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The comparison of input resolutions '0.06 vs. 0.03 mas' is dimensionally wrong for plate scales; the authors presumably mean 0.06 arcsec/pixel versus 0.03 arcsec/pixel (or 60 vs 30 mas/pixel). Please correct the units.
  4. [Sec. 3.5 and Sec. 4.3] The delivered simulations use a sky background of 0.8 counts/s per pixel in Sec. 3.5, while Sec. 4.3 uses the Roman technical-report value of 1.3 counts/s per pixel for the crowding threshold. Please clarify which background level the released 10 ks images use and discuss how the difference affects the 10% contamination estimate and completeness expectations.
  5. [Sec. 3.4.1] The sentence 'All emission to left the emission line has been attenuated' contains a typo; it should read 'to the left of the emission line'.
  6. [Sec. 3.2] The description of the distortion polynomial is unclear: 'We note that t = 0 for all 4th power and nearly all 5th power terms' does not specify which of the 44 coefficients are actually retained. Please list the non-zero monomials or otherwise clarify the structure of the polynomial used for each SCA.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ESpRESSO is a forward model whose conclusions follow from stated instrument and scene inputs; self-citations to Wold et al. (2023) are input conventions and comparisons, not load-bearing proof.

full rationale

The paper derives its simulated grism scenes by combining CANDELS F160W imaging, 3D-HST/EAZY SEDs, and Roman WFI grism design parameters (44-term distortion polynomial, wavelength- and position-dependent response functions, order dispersion and efficiency curves). No parameter is fitted to a target result, and the two headlined conclusions are forward implications of these inputs: the 29-pixel (0,0)-order peak separation and 1:9 blue-to-red flux ratio follow from the assumed off-order dispersion and the response functions shown in Fig. 4, and the 'about 10% of pixels' crowding estimate follows from the simulated pixel-flux distribution compared with the WFI technical-report sky level. These are model outputs, not model inputs. The LAE injection recipe is adopted from Wold et al. (2023), which shares authors with this paper, but that citation supplies an input population model (Sersic morphology, Gaussian Ly-alpha line, power-law continuum, luminosity-function and EW sampling), not an argument that the simulation is correct. The comparison run is also the authors' own aXeSIM simulation, but it is used as a sanity-check image comparison, not as the logical ground for any derived conclusion. The abstract's 'high (synthetic) LAE completeness' is never quantitatively demonstrated by a recovery test; this is an unsupported claim or verification gap, not circularity, because completeness is not an input to the simulation. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained, and the only noteworthy circularity-adjacent feature is benign use of the authors' prior work for input conventions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit any physical parameter to a target result. The free parameters are assumed inputs from prior surveys or instrument specifications; the axioms are the forward-modeling simplifications that the synthetic scenes inherit. The most consequential assumptions are the wavelength-independent morphology and the pre-launch grism model.

free parameters (5)
  • Sky background rate = 0.8 counts/s/pixel (image generation); 1.3 counts/s/pixel (crowding threshold)
    Assumed uniform background from Roman technical material; controls noise level and the 10% contamination estimate.
  • LAE luminosity function slope alpha = -2.5
    Input sampling distribution from LAGER and SILVERRUSH z~5-7 surveys; determines injected LAE population.
  • LAE equivalent width scale length = 100 Å
    Exponential EW sampling scale from MUSE; assumed for synthetic LAEs.
  • LAE morphology parameters = Sersic n=1, half-light radius 0.25 kpc
    Assumed compact morphology for all injected LAEs.
  • Dither offset = 0.165 arcsec (1.5 WFI pixels)
    Chosen dither step to test positive and negative dithers; not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption F160W image morphology is representative of each source at every grism wavelength
    Datacube construction in Sec. 3.1 uses the same segmentation and pixel weights for all wavelengths via Eq. 5. The authors note in Sec. 4.4(4) that this makes emission lines brighten the whole galaxy, which is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Pre-launch grism design model matches the flight instrument
    Secs. 3.2-3.3 and caveat Sec. 4.4(1); if the as-built WFI differs, all dispersion solutions and contamination conclusions shift.
  • domain assumption 3D-HST EAZY SED library, with the bright star and extended galaxy replacements, represents the foreground population
    Sec. 2.2.1; the library lacks AGN/QSO and other rare classes, which the authors flag.
  • ad hoc to paper Nearest-neighbor pixel assignment is sufficiently accurate given the oversampled datacube
    Sec. 3.2; the 3.7x spatial and 11x spectral oversampling are argued to make pixelation noise modest, but no quantitative check is shown.
  • domain assumption IGM transmission follows Inoue et al. (2014) prescriptions
    Sec. 3.4.1; used to attenuate LAE continua at z=7.25-10.5.
  • domain assumption Sky background is spatially uniform and photon noise dominates
    Sec. 3.5; ignores zodiacal gradients, detector non-uniformity, and persistence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ESpRESSO -- Forward modeling Roman Space Telescope spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QQIBJXV

@misc{pith2026241208883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ESpRESSO -- Forward modeling Roman Space Telescope spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QQIBJXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08883}
}
abstract

We describe the software package $\texttt{ESpRESSO}$ - [E]xtragalactic [Sp]ectroscopic [R]oman [E]mulator and [S]imulator of [S]ynthetic [O]bjects, created to emulate the slitless spectroscopic observing modes of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Roman) Wide Field Instrument (WFI). We combine archival Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging data of comparable spatial resolution with model spectral energy distributions to create a data-cube of flux density as a function of position and wavelength. This data-cube is used for simulating a nine detector grism observation, producing a crowded background scene which model field angle dependent optical distortions expected for the grism. We also demonstrate the ability to inject custom sources using the described tools and pipelines. In addition, we show that spectral features such as emission line pairs are unlikely to be mistaken as off order contaminating features and vice versa. Our result is a simulation suite of half of the eighteen detector array, with a realistic background scene and injected Ly$\alpha$ emitter (LAE) galaxies, realized at 25 position angles (PAs), 12 with analogous positive and negative dithers, Using an exposure time of 10ks per PA, the full PA set can be used as a mock deep Roman grism survey with high (synthetic) LAE completeness for developing future spectral data analysis tools.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Roman detector array overlaid on top of our science image input. Bottom: Blown up version of the science image input. Specifically shown is the F160W cutout of the CANDELS COSMOS field at a resolution of 30 mas / pixel. The area of the image is 15’ x 6’ or 0.025 deg2 . 2.2 3D-HST & EAZY 3D-HST (Brammer et al. 2012) was a HST Treasury program de￾signed to complement the CANDELS program by utilizing WFC3 imaging … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EAZY templates used to re-construct best fit SEDs in the rest frame. Templates 1–5 (black) are from the PEGASE model (Fioc & Rocca￾Volmerange 1997), template 6 (cyan) and 7 (magenta) are derived from ob￾servations in Whitaker et al. (2011). Absorption (red, dashed-dotted) and emission (dashed) line features in the templates are annotated. fluxes after subtracting the continuum flux estimated from adjacent wavelength… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the ESpRESSO pipeline. The algorithms and methods developed in this work are blue rounded squares. Using our imaging data, we generate a datacube (§3.1) that is a function of (x, y, 𝜆). This datacube is used as input in our grism detector simulator (§3.2-3.3), producing a synthetic foreground image. Users can also generate grism images of their custom objects (§3.4) using the same pipeline. Input relate… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The grism’s wavelength dependent response function 𝐶(𝑖, 𝑗) 𝑅grism (𝜆) for the (0,0) (blue), (1,1) (black), and (2,2) (red) orders as expressed in eq. 10 & 12. The relative efficiency is measured w.r.t. the maximum (1,1) response value. The positional based blue- and re…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of a star injected into the middle of SCA5. The left panel is the image stamp with an area of 550 x 550 px2 (16.5" x 16.5"), taken directly from HST CANDELS F125W imaging data (COSMOS ID - 15101). The top-right is the simulated grism (1,1) order cutout of 86…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of an emission line galaxy (ELG) injected into the middle of SCA5 with H𝛼, H𝛽, and [OIII] emission lines. The properties of the galaxy are the following: COSMOS ID - 15485, 𝑧 ∼ 1.27, log10M∗ = 10.74[M⊙ ] (Skelton et al. 2014; Suess et al. 2019). Panels are s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of a 𝑧 = 9.5 Ly𝛼 emitter (LAE) injected into the middle of SCA5 using the process described in Sec. 3.4.1. Panels are similarly described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scaled noiseless images of the (top) (0,0), (middle) (1,1), and (bottom) (2,2) orders. Each frame shows a the same region of 110 by 93.5 arcseconds (1000 by 850 pixels at a resolution of 11 mas / pixel). L1 L2 𝑧pair [SII]𝜆6732Å [NII]𝜆6549Å 0.71 [SII]𝜆6718Å [NII]𝜆6549Å …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison of ESpRESSO to other simulation results. Top-left: COSMOS grism simulation produced using ESpRESSO at a position angle at 90 deg. Top-right: COSMOS grism simulation produced using aXeSIM. Bottom row: 22 x 22 arcsec2 (200 x 200 px2 ) cutouts comparing best …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For our simulated grism extra-galactic scene, we show the cu￾mulative fraction of pixels with flux above a count per second threshold. Assuming a background level of 1.3 counts s−1 pixel−1 , we show the 3𝜎 sky-background limit for typical High Latitude Wide Area surve…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    K., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..297A 175, 297

    Adelman-McCarthy J. K., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..297A 175, 297

    doi:10.1086/524984 2008

  3. [3]

    arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson R., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A p. arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [4]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.622..707A 622, 707

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  5. [5]

    Ashby M. L. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769...80A 769, 80

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/80 2013

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    H., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2850B 122, 2850

    Becker R. H., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2850B 122, 2850

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    J., 2012, @doi [New Astronomy] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 , 17, 175

    Benson A. J., 2012, @doi [New Astronomy] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 , 17, 175

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

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

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    Bielby R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..23B 545, A23

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Brammer G., 2021, gbrammer/eazy-py: Tagged release 2021 , Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.5012705

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    B., van Dokkum P

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

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..200...13B 200, 13

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    Bunker A. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..88B 677, A88

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Calzetti D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1449C 113, 1449

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Storchi-Bergmann T., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429..582C 429, 582

    Calzetti D., Kinney A. L., Storchi-Bergmann T., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429..582C 429, 582

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    Cardamone C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399.1191C 399, 1191

    2009

  13. [21]

    O'Reilly

    Collette A., 2013, Python and HDF5. O'Reilly

    2013

  14. [22]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..622C 7, 622

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...44D 151, 44

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...44D 151, 44

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Dijkstra M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...40D 31, e040

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    arXiv:1804.03628

    Dor \'e O., et al., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1804.03628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180403628D p. arXiv:1804.03628

    2018 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231012340E p. arXiv:2310.12340

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Erben T., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493.1197E 493, 1197

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Ferreras I., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1358F 486, 1358

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Fioc M., Rocca-Volmerange B., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...326..950F 326, 950

    1997 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fiore F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..16F 537, A16

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135f8001G 135, 068001

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135f8001G 135, 068001

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    Grogin N. A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...35G 197, 35

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Peterson B

    Gunn J. E., Peterson B. A., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1633G 142, 1633

    1965 doi

  27. [35]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Harikane Y., Nakajima K., Ouchi M., Umeda H., Isobe Y., Ono Y., Xu Y., Zhang Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...56H 960, 56

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..10H 608, A10

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Hildebrandt H., Pielorz J., Erben T., van Waerbeke L., Simon P., Capak P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...498..725H 498, 725

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Hu W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4cf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...90H 886, 90

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Shimizu I., Iwata I., Tanaka M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1805I 442, 1805

    Inoue A. K., Shimizu I., Iwata I., Tanaka M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.1805I 442, 1805

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Oey M

    Jaskot A. E., Oey M. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...91J 766, 91

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Matthee J., Eilers A.-C., Mackenzie R., Bordoloi R., Simcoe R

    Kashino D., Lilly S. J., Matthee J., Eilers A.-C., Mackenzie R., Bordoloi R., Simcoe R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...66K 950, 66

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Malhotra S., Rhoads J

    Kim K. J., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., Yang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914....2K 914, 2

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..196K 172, 196

    Koekemoer A. M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..196K 172, 196

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...36K 197, 36

    Koekemoer A. M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...36K 197, 36

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    Konno A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..16K 70, S16

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Pirzkal N., Kuntschner H., Pasquali A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/596715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121...59K 121, 59

    K \"u mmel M., Walsh J. R., Pirzkal N., Kuntschner H., Pasquali A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/596715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121...59K 121, 59

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Pitrou A., Seibert S., 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC

    Lam S. K., Pitrou A., Seibert S., 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC. pp 1--6

    2015

  43. [51]

    C., Johnson B

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....3L 876, 3

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    J., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389.1179L 389, 1179

    Lintott C. J., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389.1179L 389, 1179

    2008

  45. [53]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617L...5M 617, L5

    Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617L...5M 617, L5

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    Malhotra S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..666M 626, 666

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Kashino D., Lilly S

    Matthee J., Mackenzie R., Simcoe R. A., Kashino D., Lilly S. J., Bordoloi R., Eilers A.-C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...67M 950, 67

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    McCracken H. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A.156M 544, A156

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    McDonald P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163...80M 163, 80

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1067M 535, 1067

    Meyer R. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1067M 535, 1067

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    Momcheva I. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Gruen D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ARA&A..60..363N 60, 363

    Newman J. A., Gruen D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ARA&A..60..363N 60, 363

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  55. [63]

    Papovich C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937...22P 937, 22

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    A., et al., 2018, in Johnson R

    Pasquale B. A., et al., 2018, in Johnson R. B., Mahajan V. N., Thibault S., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10745, Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering XIX. p. 107450K, @doi 10.1117/12.2325859

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Malhotra S., Rhoads J

    Perez L. A., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., Laursen P., Wold I. G. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..102P 940, 102

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Pharo J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888...79P 888, 79

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Pirzkal N., Pasquali A., Demleitner M., 2001, Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility Newsletter, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001STECF..29....5P 29, 5

    2001

  60. [68]

    Pirzkal N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..501P 154, 501

    2004 doi

  61. [69]

    Pirzkal N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...84P 846, 84

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    Reback J., et al., 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2 , Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..942R 697, 942

    Rhoads J. E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..942R 697, 942

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..14R 942, L14

    Rhoads J. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..14R 942, L14

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Rigby J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135d8001R 135, 048001

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172...86S 172, 86

    Sanders D. B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172...86S 172, 86

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....1S 172, 1

    2007 doi

  68. [76]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    Skelton R. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...24S 214, 24

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:0003.002 ( @eprint ascl 0003.002 )

    2000

  70. [78]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53...51S 53, 51

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    arXiv:1503.03757

    Spergel D., et al., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S p. arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1624S 135, 1624

    Straughn A. N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1624S 135, 1624

    2008 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Kriek M., Price S

    Suess K. A., Kriek M., Price S. H., Barro G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1bda , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..103S 877, 103

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    Sun F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd53c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953...53S 953, 53

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Taniguchi Y., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....9T 172, 9

    2007 doi

  76. [84]

    L., Fan X., Wang F., Yang J., Malhotra S., Rhoads J

    Tee W. L., Fan X., Wang F., Yang J., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf12d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...52T 956, 52

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    Tilvi V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827L..14T 827, L14

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    T., Vacca W

    Tokunaga A. T., Vacca W. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117..421T 117, 421

    2005 doi

  79. [87]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2044T 501, 2044

    Troxel M. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2044T 501, 2044

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    L., 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual

    Van Rossum G., Drake F. L., 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA

    2009

  81. [89]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    Wang Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928....1W 928, 1

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    Wang F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...4W 951, L4

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...86W 735, 86

    2011 doi

  85. [93]

    Wold I. G. B., Barger A. J., Cowie L. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783..119W 783, 119

    2014 doi

  86. [94]

    Wold I. G. B., Finkelstein S. L., Barger A. J., Cowie L. L., Rosenwasser B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d6b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848..108W 848, 108

    2017 doi

  87. [95]

    Wold I. G. B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...36W 927, 36

    2022 doi

  88. [96]

    Wold I. G. B., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., Tilvi V., Gabrielpillai A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.01562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230501562W p. arXiv:2305.01562

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    Xia L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144...28X 144, 28

    2012 doi

  90. [98]

    Yung L. Y. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1578Y 519, 1578

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    Zheng Z.-Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa794f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842L..22Z 842, L22

    2017 doi

  92. [100]

    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 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.