Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Beyond Traditional Diagnostics: Identifying Active Galactic Nuclei with Spectral Energy Distribution Fitting in DESI Data

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SED fitting of DESI galaxies recovers ~70% of line-selected AGN and 86-87% of WISE-selected AGN when all four WISE bands have good signal.

desk verdict Careful, useful DESI EDR calibration of SED-based AGN selection—but the headline completeness/contamination numbers are in-sample and need out-of-sample validation before they become survey predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09143 v1 pith:HP7S7BB4 submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

M. Siudek , M. Mezcua , C. Circosta , C. Maraston , J. Moustakas , H. Zou , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen
show 31 more authors
D. Bianchi D. Brooks T. Claybaugh K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra Arjun Dey P. Doel J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gaztañaga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez M. Ishak S. Juneau D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin A. Lambert M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Meisner R. Miquel F. Prada I. Pérez-Ràfols G. Rossi E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo D. Sprayberry G. Tarlé B. A. Weaver
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SEDfittingAGNselectionCIGALEWISEmid-infraredDESIgalaxiesfractionactivegalacticnucleimulti-wavelengthclassification
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 argues that fitting the optical-to-mid-infrared spectral energy distribution (SED) of galaxies can serve as a workable AGN selection tool for large surveys, even when spectroscopy is sparse. On DESI Early Data Release galaxies at z≤0.5, the authors show that an AGN fraction threshold of ≥0.1, applied only to sources with high-signal WISE photometry in all four bands, recovers roughly 70% of narrow-line and broad-line AGN and about 86-87% of WISE color-selected AGN. The same infrared requirement cuts star-forming contamination from 62% down to 15%, and the method also flags a large population of massive, passive galaxies with mid-infrared excess that standard diagnostics miss. The upshot is that SED fitting can unify multi-wavelength AGN selections and build more complete AGN samples for surveys where emission-line or X-ray information is limited.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is AGNFRAC, the fraction of the total infrared luminosity contributed by the AGN component in a CIGALE SED fit, combined with the infrared-quality flag FLAGINFRARED. The fits use optical (g, r, z) and WISE (W1-W4) photometry with the default grid of Fritz et al. (2006) AGN templates, Bruzual & Charlot (2003) stellar populations, and fixed solar metallicity, and the selection rule is simply AGNFRAC≥0.1 plus FLAGINFRARED=4. The machinery works by separating galaxies whose mid-infrared light is dominated by dust heated by the accretion disk from those whose infrared output comes from star formation; when the WISE bands are noisy or absent this separation collapses.

What would settle it

Take a sample of galaxies with deep Chandra or XMM coverage but no SED-based preselection, run the exact CIGALE grid described here, and compare the recovery rate of X-ray-confirmed AGN at AGNFRAC≥0.1 with the recovery rate of X-ray-quiet star-forming galaxies; if the two rates are not clearly separated, the threshold is not tracing nuclear activity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CIGALE-derived AGN fraction (AGNFRAC), the fraction of infrared luminosity contributed by the AGN template, is a valid AGN indicator—but only when it is paired with reliable mid-infrared photometry. Using AGNFRAC≥0.1 together with FLAGINFRARED=4 (all four WISE bands with SNR≥3), the SED method matches about 70% of BPT-AGN and broad-line AGN and 86-87% of WISE-selected AGN, while star-forming contamination drops to about 15%. Without high-quality WISE data the AGN fraction distributions of star-forming and AGN galaxies become nearly indistinguishable (ROC AUC falls to ~0.57), so the method's power is contingent on the mid-infrared coverage. The paper also finds that roughly half of SED-AGN candidates are not caught by BPT, WISE, X-ray, or radio diagnostics; expanding the diagnostic set leaves only about 16% as SED-only, most of them old, passive galaxies whose optical light hides a mid-infrared excess suggestive of weak or fading nuclear activity.

Load-bearing premise

Every SED-AGN label is just the threshold AGNFRAC≥0.1, and that number comes from one specific model grid with Fritz et al. (2006) AGN templates at fixed solar metallicity, so the reported recovery and contamination rates are only as trustworthy as that grid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys that have photometry but limited spectroscopy can use AGNFRAC≥0.1 with full WISE coverage as a practical AGN selector.
  • Relaxing the quality cut to FLAGINFRARED≥3 keeps the same median AGN fractions and yields a larger but less restrictive sample.
  • The method substantially overlaps with, but does not replace, traditional diagnostics: it recovers ~50% of X-ray AGN and ~40% of radio AGN, so it should be combined with other tracers for a complete census.
  • The SED-only AGN population, dominated by massive passive galaxies with high D4000 and red UVJ colors, is a plausible reservoir of weak or fading nuclear activity that other methods miss.
  • Without high-SNR WISE photometry in all four bands, AGNFRAC is essentially non-discriminative, so applying the threshold blindly to photometry-poor samples would fail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SED-only candidates are confirmed as true AGN, this method would roughly double the AGN census at z≤0.5 relative to optical emission-line selection alone.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to DESI DR1's much larger footprint, or to photometric-redshift samples where no spectra exist at all, extending AGN searches to fainter and more distant galaxies.
  • The strong template dependence shown in Appendix C suggests that running a two-template ensemble (Fritz and SKIRTOR) or leaving metallicity free would let surveys explicitly trade completeness against star-forming contamination.
  • Deep X-ray follow-up of the LINER-classified SED-AGN candidates would decide between true accretion and photoionization by old stellar populations, which is the main open question for the SED-only population.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper tests SED-based AGN identification using CIGALE optical-to-MIR SED fits of 510,938 DESI Early Data Release galaxies at z≤0.5 with reliable redshifts and good photometric/SED quality. The authors define SED-AGN by AGNFRAC≥0.1 combined with FLAGINFRARED=4 (SNR≥3 in all four WISE bands) and compare against BPT diagrams (three variants), WHAN, broad-Hα (BL-AGN), WISE color, X-ray, and radio selections. They report that the SED method recovers approximately 70% of BPT-AGN and BL-AGN and 86-87% of WISE-AGN, with 15% contamination from star-forming galaxies when good MIR data are available, whereas without high-SNR WISE photometry the AGN and star-forming populations are nearly indistinguishable. About half of the SED-AGN sample is not selected by the main classical diagnostics; after adding finer diagnostics (LINER, composite, retired, X-ray, radio), this 'SED-AGN Only' fraction drops to about 16%, with these objects being predominantly massive, passive, red-sequence galaxies. The paper advocates SED fitting as a complementary multi-wavelength AGN-selection tool for large surveys.

Significance. If the reported quantitative results hold, the paper provides a useful reference for photometry-driven AGN selection in current and upcoming large surveys (DESI, Euclid, LSST), and its demonstration that AGNFRAC from optical-MIR fits is only usable when high-SNR WISE photometry is present is an important practical caution. The paper is unusually transparent: the full CIGALE parameter grid is published (Table A.1), the sensitivity of the classification to model choices is quantified (Table C.1 and Fig. D.1), the VAC and the data behind the figures are public, and the authors explicitly flag the limitations of the AGNFRAC uncertainties, the weakness of the [NeIII] detection, and the debated nature of LINERs. The qualitative claims—MIR photometry is essential and SED-AGN overlaps substantially with classical AGN samples, including an independent X-ray check that recovers about half of X-ray AGN—are well supported by the distribution shifts, ROC curves, and stacked spectra. The main quantitative claims (70%, 86-87%, 15%) are, however, in-sample and model-grid-specific, so their predictive value is the part of the paper that needs the most scrutiny.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Appendix D, Table 2] The headline recovery and contamination rates (≈70% for BPT-AGN and BL-AGN, 86% for WISE-AGN, 15% for BPT-SF in Table 2) are in-sample estimates: the AGNFRAC≥0.1 threshold is selected by ROC analysis (Appendix D, Fig. D.1) on the same FLAGINFRARED=4 sample that serves as the denominator for those rates, and Appendix D does not specify which classes define the positive and negative sets in the ROC analysis. Because the operating point is chosen from the same data used to quote the performance, the reported completeness and purity are self-assessments rather than predictions. Please provide an out-of-sample evaluation (for example, a training/test split of the ROC analysis, or a validation on the DESI DR1 VAC) or explicitly rephrase the headline numbers as the calibration performance of a threshold tuned on the same sample.
  2. [§3.3, §4.2, Table 2, Abstract] The 86-87% recovery of WISE-AGN is not an independent test, because the same WISE photometry (W1-W4) enters both the CIGALE fits that produce AGNFRAC and the Hviding et al. (2022) color criterion that defines WISE-AGN. The text notes this at §3.3, but the Abstract and §5 still headline the 87% figure. The genuinely independent high-energy checks give lower recovery (≈45-50% for X-ray AGN and ≈40% for radio AGN, §4.3), so the abstract and conclusions should either report the range of recovery across all benchmarks or explicitly label the WISE-AGN number as a partly circular consistency check.
  3. [§2.2, Table A.1, Appendix C, Table C.1] The quoted rates are specific to the default CIGALE grid and the chosen operating point. Table A.1 samples AGNFRAC at 0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, ..., so the '≥0.1' cut is nearly equivalent to 'any non-zero AGN contribution in the fit,' and small photometric or prior changes can move sources across the boundary. Table C.1 shows that switching to SKIRTOR AGN templates raises WISE-AGN recovery to ≈97% while increasing star-forming contamination to ≈27%, and that adopting a Charlot & Fall dust attenuation law reduces BPT-AGN recovery to ≈55%. The abstract should state that the 70%/86%/15% figures are for the default Fritz (2006) grid and that the model-induced spread is of order 10 percentage points.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4.2 and §5] The '62%' star-forming contamination is not consistently defined: in §4.2 it is quoted for the BPT-SF sample as a whole, while the Fig. 5 caption and the fifth summary bullet attribute it to the case with limited WISE coverage. The Abstract's 'from 62% to 15%' therefore compares different samples; please give the FLAGINFRARED-stratified values explicitly.
  2. [§3.5] The BPT-AGN reference class includes composite sources from the [NII]-BPT in the definition of §3.5; because composites are not secure AGN, the '~70% recovery of BPT-AGN' mixes pure AGN with composites. Please quantify how the recovery changes when only the pure-AGN (non-composite) part of the [NII]-BPT is used.
  3. [Table 4, §4.4] The very low median SFR of SED-AGN Only galaxies (log SFR ≈ −2.23) and the 'passive' conclusion are derived from the same CIGALE fits that define AGNFRAC; an independent estimate (e.g., from FastSpecFit line luminosities or D4000 alone) would strengthen this claim.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase '~70% of narrow/broad-line AGN' is imprecise: Table 2 gives 69.3% for BPT-AGN and 70.1% for BL-AGN; please name the two reference samples explicitly.
  5. [Footnote 7] 'FLAGNFRARED=4' is a typo for 'FLAGINFRARED=4'.
  6. [Fig. D.1] The ROC figure is dense; a short caption describing the default setting and each variant label (e.g., 'Z' = variable metallicity, 'AGN model' = SKIRTOR) would greatly improve readability.
  7. [§2.2 and Appendix C] The 'representative sample of ~50,000 galaxies' used for the model-dependence tests is described only by reference to Siudek et al. (2024); two sentences on its construction here would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline recovery and contamination rates are in-sample: the AGNFRAC>=0.1 cut is ROC-tuned on the same FLAGINFRARED=4 labels later used to report 70%/86%/15%.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 4.1, Appendix D (Fig. D.1), and Table 2]
    "Taking into account the strong correlation between AGNFRAC and the availability of WISE photometry with SNR>=3 (see also Sect. 4.2), we recommend applying a selection criterion of AGNFRAC>=0.1 combined with FLAGINFRARED=4 to define AGN based on SED fitting (SED-AGN). This threshold is motivated both by the observed peak in AGNFRAC distributions for spectroscopically confirmed AGN classes (see Fig. 4) and by its optimal diagnostic performance in the ROC analysis (see Appendix D). ... Table 2."

    The ROC analysis in Appendix D is computed on the same FLAGINFRARED=4 sample used in Table 2, using the same BPT-AGN, BL-AGN, WISE-AGN, and BPT-SF labels. The threshold AGNFRAC>=0.1 is selected to optimize separation between those labels, and Table 2 then reports recovery/contamination percentages at that optimized cut for those same labels. Thus the headline values (70% BL-AGN, 69% BPT-AGN, 86% WISE-AGN, 15% BPT-SF contamination) are in-sample ROC operating points rather than independent predictions, with no held-out sample or cross-validation. The underlying CIGALE AGNFRAC is not label-trained, so this is a validation-loop circularity rather than full definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The SED fitting itself is not label-trained: CIGALE fits optical-MIR photometry against a fixed physical model grid, and BPT-AGN, BL-AGN, X-ray, and radio classifications rely on data that are not inputs to the fit, giving genuine independent support. The circular component is narrower: the decision threshold AGNFRAC>=0.1 is chosen via ROC analysis on the same FLAGINFRARED=4 sample and the same BPT/WISE/BL labels that are later used to quote recovery and contamination rates, so those rates are in-sample operating characteristics rather than out-of-sample predictions. In addition, the WISE-AGN benchmark shares the WISE photometry that constrains AGNFRAC, so the 86% WISE recovery is partly an internal consistency check; the paper acknowledges this in Sect. 3.3 but still presents it as validation. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and Appendix C honestly quantifies model dependence (e.g., switching to SKIRTOR changes WISE recovery from 86% to 97% and contamination from 15% to 27%). Overall there is partial circularity in the headline validation loop, with independent content in the BPT, BL-AGN, X-ray, and radio comparisons.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central classification relies on one tuned numeric threshold (AGNFRAC>=0.1), one tuned data-quality cut (FLAGINFRARED=4), and several model-library assumptions (Fritz AGN templates, solar metallicity, Chabrier IMF, Calzetti attenuation). These are either fitted on the same sample or chosen by hand from the CIGALE grid. No new physical entities are postulated; SED-AGN Only and SED-MIR-AGN are data-selection classes, not invented physical components.

free parameters (2)
  • AGNFRAC threshold = 0.1
    Chosen by maximizing ROC separation between AGN and star-forming reference samples on the same DESI EDR sample; not derived from first principles (Sect. 4.1, Appendix D).
  • FLAGINFRARED cut = =4 (all four WISE bands with SNR>=3)
    Selected by comparing AGNFRAC distributions for FLAGINFRARED<=2 versus =4; the threshold and the cut jointly define the SED-AGN sample, so both are tuned on the same data (Sect. 4.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CIGALE model library with Fritz et al. (2006) AGN templates, Bruzual & Charlot (2003) stellar populations, Chabrier IMF, Calzetti attenuation, and Draine dust emission yields AGNFRAC values that trace true AGN contribution.
    Defines the SED-AGN selection in Sect. 2.2 and 4.1; Appendix C shows the choice changes results (SKIRTOR raises WISE-AGN recovery from 86% to 97% and SF contamination from 15% to 27%).
  • domain assumption The reference diagnostics (BPT, WHAN, WISE, X-ray, radio) at their adopted thresholds are treated as ground truth for AGN, and galaxies not selected by them are treated as non-AGN for completeness calculations.
    Section 3 defines the reference samples and Tables 2 and 3 compute SED recovery against these labels; incompleteness of each diagnostic is acknowledged qualitatively but not modeled.
  • domain assumption Parent sample selection cuts (ZWARN = 0 or 4, COADD_FIBERSTATUS = 0, z<=0.5, LOGM != 0, CHI2<=17) do not bias the AGN comparison.
    Section 3 introduces the cuts; no sensitivity analysis for them is shown in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper AGNFRAC uncertainties from CIGALE are unreliable in the faint or low-infrared regime and can be excluded from the classification.
    Section 4.1 states the error estimates are poorly constrained; excluding them removes all error bars from the SED-AGN selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Traditional Diagnostics: Identifying Active Galactic Nuclei with Spectral Energy Distribution Fitting in DESI Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HP7S7BB4

@misc{pith2026250609143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Traditional Diagnostics: Identifying Active Galactic Nuclei with Spectral Energy Distribution Fitting in DESI Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HP7S7BB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09143}
}
abstract

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are typically identified through their distinctive X-ray or radio emissions, mid-infrared (MIR) colors, or emission lines. However, each method captures different subsets of AGN due to signal-to-noise (SNR) limitations, redshift coverage, and extinction effects, underscoring the necessity for a multi-wavelength approach for comprehensive AGN samples. This study explores the effectiveness of spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting as a robust method for AGN identification. Using {\tt CIGALE} optical-MIR SED fits on DESI Early Data Release galaxies, we compare SED-based AGN selection ({\tt AGNFRAC} $\geq0.1$) with traditional methods including BPT diagrams, WISE colors, X-ray, and radio diagnostics. SED fitting identifies $\sim 70\%$ of narrow/broad-line AGN and 87\% of WISE-selected AGN. Incorporating high SNR WISE photometry reduces star-forming galaxy contamination from 62\% to 15\%. Initially, $\sim50\%$ of SED-AGN candidates are undetected by standard methods, but additional diagnostics classify $\sim85\%$ of these sources, revealing LINERs and retired galaxies potentially representing evolved systems with weak AGN activity. Further spectroscopic and multi-wavelength analysis will be essential to determine the true AGN nature of these sources. SED fitting provides complementary AGN identification, unifying multi-wavelength AGN selections. This approach enables more complete -- albeit with some contamination -- AGN samples essential for upcoming large-scale surveys where spectroscopic diagnostics may be limited.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emission line diagnostic diagrams for DESI galaxies: N[II]-BPT (left), [SII]-BPT (middle), and [OI]-BPT (right). The demarcation lines separate star-forming galaxies, composites, and AGN (for simplicity we refer to Seyfert 2 galaxies as AGN). 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 z 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Nnormalized 7 8 9 10 11 12 log(Mstar/M ) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Nnormalized −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 log(SFR/M yr−1) 0.0 0.2 0.4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of z (top left panel), stellar mass (top right panel), SFR (bottom left panel), and χ 2 (bottom right panel) for the AGN, and star-forming samples. 3.3. WISE selection To select MIR-AGN we rely on the WISE color-color diagram W2 − W3 vs. W1 − W2 proposed by (Hviding et al. 2022). We restrict the sample to galaxies with SNR ≥ 3 in all WISE bands used in the diagram and to z ≤ 0.5. We note, that the force… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Venn diagram illustrating the overlap between AGN selected us￾ing different methods: BPT-AGN (violet circle), BL-AGN (green cir￾cle), and WISE-AGN (yellow circle). The areas of overlap between circles indicate AGN identified by multiple methods, highlighting the diversity and overlap in AGN classification across different diagnostic techniques. 4. Results and Discussion In this Section, we validate the AGN fraction … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the AGN fraction defined as the fraction of the IR emission coming from the AGN to the total IR emission (AGNFRAC) for BPT-selected star-forming galaxies (BPT-SF), BPT-selected AGN, WISE-selected AGN and BL-AGN observed in at most two WISE bands with SN…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BPT diagram for DESI galaxies observed at most in two MIR bands with SNR ≥ 3 (i.e., FLAGINFRARED ≤ 2; left panel) and with all four WISE photometry with SNR ≥ 3 (i.e., FLAGINFRARED = 4; right panel). The demarcation lines separating star-forming galaxies, composites, A…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WISE diagram as a function of AGN fraction for DESI galaxies observed with SNR ≥ 3 at W1 − 3 (left panel) or at all WISE bands (i.e., FLAGINFRARED = 4; right panel). The region of AGN is marked by a red dotted line and follows the criterion proposed by Hviding et al. (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stacked spectra of BPT-AGN, WISE-AGN, SED-AGN, and BPT-SF. The stacked spectrum of SED-AGN galaxies highlights the charac￾teristic AGN emission line ratios, suggesting their AGN nature. The stacked spectrum is created using the mean for normalization, preserving the re…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optical Strong Line Ratios Cannot Distinguish Between Stellar Populations and Accreting Black Holes at High Ionization Parameters and Low Metallicities

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optical strong line ratio diagnostics cannot reliably separate stellar from black hole ionizing sources at high ionization parameter and low metallicity, and higher ionization lines such as He II or [Ne V] are needed ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Salim , S., Boquien , M., et al

    Agostino , C. J., Salim , S., Boquien , M., et al. 2023, , 526, 4455

    2023

  2. [2]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44

    2023

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19288

    Anand , A., Guy , J., Bailey , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19288

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    J., Stern , D., Kochanek , C

    Assef , R. J., Stern , D., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2013, , 772, 26

    2013

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  6. [6]

    2024, , 685, A141

    Barchiesi , L., Vignali , C., Pozzi , F., et al. 2024, , 685, A141

    2024

  7. [7]

    2025, , 694, A127

    Bernal , S., S \'a nchez-S \'a ez , P., Ar \'e valo , P., et al. 2025, , 694, A127

    2025

  8. [8]

    2013, , 551, A100

    Berta , S., Lutz , D., Santini , P., et al. 2013, , 551, A100

    2013

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W

    Best , P. N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W. L., et al. 2023, , 523, 1729

    2023

  2. [10]

    2024, [ [arXiv] 2406.11962 ]

    Bichang'a , B., Kaviraj , S., Lazar , I., et al. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2406.11962 ]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2019, , 622, A103

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bradley , A. P. 1997, Pattern Recognition, 30, 1145

    1997

  5. [13]

    Brandt , W. N. & Alexander , D. M. 2015, , 23, 1

    2015

  6. [14]

    2023, , 166, 66

    Brodzeller , A., Dawson , K., Bailey , S., et al. 2023, , 166, 66

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    2003

  8. [16]

    J., Liu , X., Shen , Y., et al

    Burke , C. J., Liu , X., Shen , Y., et al. 2022, , 516, 2736

    2022

  9. [17]

    J., Liu , Y., Ward , C

    Burke , C. J., Liu , Y., Ward , C. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.06882

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2011, , 728, 58

    Burlon , D., Ajello , M., Greiner , J., et al. 2011, , 728, 58

    2011

  11. [19]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682

    2000

  12. [20]

    M., Satyapal , S., Abel , N

    Cann , J. M., Satyapal , S., Abel , N. P., et al. 2019, , 870, L2

    2019

  13. [21]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  14. [22]

    & Fall , S

    Charlot , S. & Fall , S. M. 2000, , 539, 718

    2000

  15. [23]

    2023, , 944, 107

    Chaussidon , E., Y \`e che , C., Palanque-Delabrouille , N., et al. 2023, , 944, 107

    2023

  16. [24]

    2011, , 413, 1687

    Cid Fernandes , R., Stasi \'n ska , G., Mateus , A., & Vale Asari , N. 2011, , 413, 1687

    2011

  17. [25]

    S., et al

    Cid Fernandes , R., Stasi \'n ska , G., Schlickmann , M. S., et al. 2010, , 403, 1036

    2010

  18. [26]

    2015, , 576, A10

    Ciesla , L., Charmandaris , V., Georgakakis , A., et al. 2015, , 576, A10

    2015

  19. [27]

    2023, , 672, A191

    Ciesla , L., G \'o mez-Guijarro , C., Buat , V., et al. 2023, , 672, A191

    2023

  20. [28]

    M., Negus , J., Barrows , R

    Comerford , J. M., Negus , J., Barrows , R. S., et al. 2022, , 927, 23

    2022

  21. [29]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

    1998

  22. [30]

    J., Singh , M., Adams , N., et al

    Conselice , C. J., Singh , M., Adams , N., et al. 2023, , 525, 1353

    2023

  23. [31]

    P., Werner , M., Akeson , R., et al

    Crill , B. P., Werner , M., Akeson , R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin , 114430I

    2020

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20385

    Csizi , B., Tortorelli , L., Siudek , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20385

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Helou , G., Magdis , G

    Dale , D. A., Helou , G., Magdis , G. E., et al. 2014, , 784, 83

    2014

  26. [34]

    Das , S., Smith , D. J. B., Haskell , P., et al. 2024, , 531, 977

    2024

  27. [35]

    2022, , 164, 207

    DESI Collaboration , Abareshi , B., Aguilar , J., et al. 2022, , 164, 207

    2022

  28. [36]

    G., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Abdul-Karim , M., Adame , A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G., Aguilar , J., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Adame , A. G., Aguilar , J., et al. 2024 a , , 168, 58

    2024

  30. [38]

    G., Aguilar , J., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Adame , A. G., Aguilar , J., et al. 2024 b , , 167, 62

    2024

  31. [39]

    G., Aguilar , J., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Adame , A. G., Aguilar , J., et al. 2024 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12022

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2016 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2016 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168

    2019

  35. [43]

    1978, , 63, 63

    Dodorico , S., Benvenuti , P., & Sabbadin , F. 1978, , 63, 63

    1978

  36. [44]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872

    Dor \'e , O., Bock , J., Ashby , M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al

    Draine , B. T., Aniano , G., Krause , O., et al. 2014, , 780, 172

    2014

  38. [46]

    2024, , 687, A76

    Dubois , J., Siudek , M., Fraix-Burnet , D., & Moultaka , J. 2024, , 687, A76

    2024

  39. [47]

    2025 a , , 697, A1

    Euclid Collaboration , Mellier , Y., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2025 a , , 697, A1

    2025

  40. [48]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15312

    Euclid Collaboration , Siudek , M., Huertas-Company , M., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15312

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2025 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15321

    Euclid Collaboration , Stevens , G., Fotopoulou , S., et al. 2025 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15321

    2025

  42. [50]

    N., Evans , J

    Evans , I. N., Evans , J. D., Mart \' nez-Galarza , J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10799

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N., Primini , F

    Evans , I. N., Primini , F. A., Glotfelty , K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37

    2010

  44. [52]

    A., Alexander , D

    Fawcett , V. A., Alexander , D. M., Brodzeller , A., et al. 2023, , 525, 5575

    2023

  45. [53]

    2006, , 366, 767

    Fritz , J., Franceschini , A., & Hatziminaoglou , E. 2006, , 366, 767

    2006

  46. [54]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121

    Genzel , R., Eisenhauer , F., & Gillessen , S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121

    2010

  47. [55]

    M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N

    Ghez , A. M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N. N., et al. 2008, , 689, 1044

    2008

  48. [56]

    2007, , 463, 79

    Gilli , R., Comastri , A., & Hasinger , G. 2007, , 463, 79

    2007

  49. [57]

    2010, , 519, A92

    Gilli , R., Vignali , C., Mignoli , M., et al. 2010, , 519, A92

    2010

  50. [58]

    A., Heckman , T

    Groves , B. A., Heckman , T. M., & Kauffmann , G. 2006, , 371, 1559

    2006

  51. [59]

    2025, , 981, L8

    Guo , W.-J., Pan , Z., Siudek , M., et al. 2025, , 981, L8

    2025

  52. [60]

    A., et al

    Guo , W.-J., Zou , H., Fawcett , V. A., et al. 2024 a , , 270, 26

    2024

  53. [61]

    L., et al

    Guo , W.-J., Zou , H., Greenwell , C. L., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00402

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2023, , 165, 144

    Guy , J., Bailey , S., Kremin , A., et al. 2023, , 165, 144

    2023

  55. [63]

    J., Ruiz-Macias , O., et al

    Hahn , C., Wilson , M. J., Ruiz-Macias , O., et al. 2023, , 165, 253

    2023

  56. [64]

    N., Reines , A

    Hainline , K. N., Reines , A. E., Greene , J. E., & Stern , D. 2016, , 832, 119

    2016

  57. [65]

    Harrison , C. M. & Ramos Almeida , C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17

    2024

  58. [66]

    Heckman , T. M. 1980, , 87, 152

    1980

  59. [67]

    Heckman , T. M. & Best , P. N. 2014, , 52, 589

    2014

  60. [68]

    J., White , R

    Helfand , D. J., White , R. L., & Becker , R. H. 2015, , 801, 26

    2015

  61. [69]

    2018, , 481, 1774

    Herpich , F., Stasi \'n ska , G., Mateus , A., Vale Asari , N., & Cid Fernandes , R. 2018, , 481, 1774

    2018

  62. [70]

    & Lanusse , F

    Huertas-Company , M. & Lanusse , F. 2023, , 40, e001

    2023

  63. [71]

    E., Hainline , K

    Hviding , R. E., Hainline , K. N., Rieke , M., et al. 2022, , 163, 224

    2022

  64. [72]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  65. [73]

    I., Noeske , K

    Izotov , Y. I., Noeske , K. G., Guseva , N. G., et al. 2004, , 415, L27

    2004

  66. [74]

    H., Cohen , M., Masci , F., et al

    Jarrett , T. H., Cohen , M., Masci , F., et al. 2011, , 735, 112

    2011

  67. [75]

    & Yan , R

    Ji , X. & Yan , R. 2020, , 499, 5749

    2020

  68. [76]

    M., & Salim , S

    Juneau , S., Dickinson , M., Alexander , D. M., & Salim , S. 2011, , 736, 104

    2011

  69. [77]

    2013, , 764, 176

    Juneau , S., Dickinson , M., Bournaud , F., et al. 2013, , 764, 176

    2013

  70. [78]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    2003

  71. [79]

    J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T

    Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T. 2006, , 372, 961

    2006

  72. [80]

    J., Heisler , C

    Kewley , L. J., Heisler , C. A., Dopita , M. A., & Lumsden , S. 2001, , 132, 37

    2001

  73. [81]

    M., Dunkley , J., et al

    Komatsu , E., Smith , K. M., Dunkley , J., et al. 2011, , 192, 18

    2011

  74. [82]

    & Ho , L

    Kormendy , J. & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511

    2013

  75. [83]

    E., Sajina , A., et al

    Lacy , M., Ridgway , S. E., Sajina , A., et al. 2015, , 802, 102

    2015

  76. [84]

    J., Sajina , A., et al

    Lacy , M., Storrie-Lombardi , L. J., Sajina , A., et al. 2004, , 154, 166

    2004

  77. [85]

    W., & Mykytyn , D

    Lang , D., Hogg , D. W., & Mykytyn , D. 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008

    2016

  78. [86]

    D., Alexander , D

    Lehmer , B. D., Alexander , D. M., Bauer , F. E., et al. 2010, , 724, 559

    2010

  79. [87]

    D., et al

    Leitherer , C., Schaerer , D., Goldader , J. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 3

    1999

  80. [88]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847

    Levi , M., Bebek , C., Beers , T., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    M., et al

    Mainzer , A., Bauer , J., Cutri , R. M., et al. 2014, , 792, 30

    2014

  82. [90]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 24

    Maiolino , R., Cirasuolo , M., Afonso , J., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 24

    2020

  83. [91]

    2018, , 620, A50

    Ma ek , K., Buat , V., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2018, , 620, A50

    2018

  84. [92]

    2005, , 362, 799

    Maraston , C. 2005, , 362, 799

    2005

  85. [93]

    W., Banerji , M., Maiolino , R., & Bowler , R

    Marshall , A., Auger-Williams , M. W., Banerji , M., Maiolino , R., & Bowler , R. 2022, , 515, 5617

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.00109

    Mazzolari , G., Gilli , R., Brusa , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.00109

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    M., Lang , D., Schlafly , E

    Meisner , A. M., Lang , D., Schlafly , E. F., & Schlegel , D. J. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 168

    2021

  88. [96]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 712

    Melchior , P., Joseph , R., Sanchez , J., MacCrann , N., & Gruen , D. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 712

    2021

  89. [97]

    A., Banerji , M., et al

    Merloni , A., Alexander , D. A., Banerji , M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 42

    2019

  90. [98]

    2024, , 682, A34

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34

    2024

  91. [99]

    2018, , 478, 2576

    Mezcua , M., Civano , F., Marchesi , S., et al. 2018, , 478, 2576

    2018

  92. [100]

    & Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H

    Mezcua , M. & Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H. 2024, , 528, 5252

    2024

  93. [101]

    2024, , 966, L30

    Mezcua , M., Pacucci , F., Suh , H., Siudek , M., & Natarajan , P. 2024, , 966, L30

    2024

  94. [102]

    2023, , 943, L5

    Mezcua , M., Siudek , M., Suh , H., et al. 2023, , 943, L5

    2023

  95. [103]

    2019, , 488, 685

    Mezcua , M., Suh , H., & Civano , F. 2019, , 488, 685

    2019

  96. [104]

    N., Doel , P., Gutierrez , G., et al

    Miller , T. N., Doel , P., Gutierrez , G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.06310

    2023 arXiv

  97. [105]

    2021 a , , 653, A70

    Mountrichas , G., Buat , V., Georgantopoulos , I., et al. 2021 a , , 653, A70

    2021

  98. [106]

    2021 b , , 646, A29

    Mountrichas , G., Buat , V., Yang , G., et al. 2021 b , , 646, A29

    2021

  99. [107]

    2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    Moustakas , 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

  100. [108]

    M., S \'a nchez , F

    Negus , J., Comerford , J. M., S \'a nchez , F. M., et al. 2023, , 945, 127

    2023

  101. [109]

    Oke , J. B. & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713

    1983

  102. [110]

    & Salim , S

    Osborne , C. & Salim , S. 2024, , 962, 59

    2024

  103. [111]

    2016, , 24, 13

    Padovani , P. 2016, , 24, 13

    2016

  104. [112]

    R., & Moustakas , J

    Pai , A., Blanton , M. R., & Moustakas , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05508

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    S., Kannappan , S

    Polimera , M. S., Kannappan , S. J., Richardson , C. T., et al. 2022, , 931, 44

    2022

  106. [114]

    2024, , 168, 245

    Poppett , C., Tyas , L., Aguilar , J., et al. 2024, , 168, 245

    2024

  107. [115]

    M., Robotham , A

    Prathap , J., Hopkins , A. M., Robotham , A. S. G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.11817

    2024

  108. [116]

    2025, , 982, 10

    Pucha , R., Juneau , S., Dey , A., et al. 2025, , 982, 10

    2025

  109. [117]

    A., et al

    Raichoor , A., Moustakas , J., Newman , J. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 126

    2023

  110. [118]

    A., Dopita , M

    Rich , J. A., Dopita , M. A., Kewley , L. J., & Rupke , D. S. N. 2010, , 721, 505

    2010

  111. [119]

    C., Janowiecki , S., et al

    Salim , S., Lee , J. C., Janowiecki , S., et al. 2016, , 227, 2

    2016

  112. [120]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161

    1955

  113. [121]

    C., Schawinski , K., et al

    Sarzi , M., Shields , J. C., Schawinski , K., et al. 2010, , 402, 2187

    2010

  114. [122]

    2007, , 382, 1415

    Schawinski , K., Thomas , D., Sarzi , M., et al. 2007, , 382, 1415

    2007

  115. [123]

    F., Kirkby , D., Schlegel , D

    Schlafly , E. F., Kirkby , D., Schlegel , D. J., et al. 2023, , 166, 259

    2023

  116. [124]

    W., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Hardcastle , M. J., Tasse , C., et al. 2022, , 659, A1

    2022

  117. [125]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.11792

    Siudek , M., Lisiecki , K., Mezcua , M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.11792

    2022 arXiv

  118. [126]

    2018 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.09905

    Siudek , M., Ma ek , K., Pollo , A., et al. 2018 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.09905

    2018 arXiv

  119. [127]

    2018 b , , 617, A70

    Siudek , M., Ma ek , K., Pollo , A., et al. 2018 b , , 617, A70

    2018

  120. [128]

    2017, , 597, A107

    Siudek , M., Ma ek , K., Scodeggio , M., et al. 2017, , 597, A107

    2017

  121. [129]

    2024, , 691, A308

    Siudek , M., Pucha , R., Mezcua , M., et al. 2024, , 691, A308

    2024

  122. [130]

    Stalevski , M., Fritz , J., Baes , M., Nakos , T., & Popovi \'c , L. C . 2012, , 420, 2756

    2012

  123. [131]

    2016, , 458, 2288

    Stalevski , M., Ricci , C., Ueda , Y., et al. 2016, , 458, 2288

    2016

  124. [132]

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Cid Fernandes , R., Mateus , A., Sodr \'e , L., & Asari , N. V. 2006, , 371, 972

    2006

  125. [133]

    J., Benford , D

    Stern , D., Assef , R. J., Benford , D. J., et al. 2012, , 753, 30

    2012

  126. [134]

    2005, , 631, 163

    Stern , D., Eisenhardt , P., Gorjian , V., et al. 2005, , 631, 163

    2005

  127. [135]

    2016, , 24, 10

    Tadhunter , C. 2016, , 24, 10

    2016

  128. [136]

    E., Robotham , A

    Thorne , J. E., Robotham , A. S. G., Davies , L. J. M., et al. 2022, , 509, 4940

    2022

  129. [137]

    J., & Tremonti , C

    Trouille , L., Barger , A. J., & Tremonti , C. 2011, , 742, 46

    2011

  130. [138]

    Truebenbach , A. E. & Darling , J. 2017, , 468, 196

    2017

  131. [139]

    A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al

    Webb , N. A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al. 2020, , 641, A136

    2020

  132. [140]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., & Franx , M. 2012, , 754, L29

    2012

  133. [141]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

  134. [142]

    L., Greene , J

    Wylezalek , D., Zakamska , N. L., Greene , J. E., et al. 2018, , 474, 1499

    2018

  135. [143]

    2020, , 491, 740

    Yang , G., Boquien , M., Buat , V., et al. 2020, , 491, 740

    2020

  136. [144]

    I., Papovich , C., et al

    Yang , G., Caputi , K. I., Papovich , C., et al. 2023, , 950, L5

    2023

  137. [145]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  138. [146]

    A., et al

    Zhou , R., Dey , B., Newman , J. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 58

    2023

  139. [147]

    2017, , 129, 064101

    Zou , H., Zhou , X., Fan , X., et al. 2017, , 129, 064101

    2017

  140. [148]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  141. [149]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.