Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modeling Star Formation Histories of Changing-Look AGN Host Galaxies with Prospector

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Changing-look AGN transitions are not tied to the star-formation history of their host galaxies.

desk verdict Careful, useful null result: CL-AGN hosts look statistically like ordinary Seyferts in their star formation histories, but small samples and an unclosed AGN-contamination caveat mean the conclusion should be softened from 'not associated' to 'we do not detect an association.' read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19162 v1 pith:3FI7AX32 submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.GA

Margaret E. Verrico , K. Decker French , Katherine Suess , Tanay Agrawal , Lauranne Lanz , Yuanze Luo , Pallavi Patil , Kate Rowlands
show 2 more authors
Margaret Shepherd Maya Skarbinski
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords changing-lookAGNstarformationhistorystellarpopulationsynthesisSeyfertgalaxiesgreenvalleypost-starburstsupermassiveblackholeaccretionSDSSspectroscopy
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 tests whether changing-look active galactic nuclei (AGN) — galaxies whose bright centers switch between Seyfert types 1 and 2 over months to years — inhabit hosts with unusual star-formation histories. The authors fit 39 such hosts with the Prospector stellar-population-synthesis code and find that their specific star-formation rates, mass-assembly times, and star-formation durations are statistically indistinguishable from those of ordinary Seyfert host galaxies. Green Valley CL-AGN show no post-starburst signature and no rapid quenching. The paper concludes that the changing-look phenomenon is not associated with the host galaxy's large-scale formation history, implying the trigger acts in the nucleus or accretion disk.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Prospector's non-parametric `continuity_psb_sfh` star-formation-history template fitted to narrow-line SDSS spectra with AGN emission lines masked. The template's key property is its flexible final bin, which can vary in both star-formation rate and duration, letting the fit recover the time since a starburst ended without forcing a starburst to be present. Mock spectra with and without added quasar contamination calibrate the recoverable parameters, and mock post-starburst spectra show the template captures, but does not require, a burst, as demonstrated on the TDE host ASASSN-14li.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to measure the recovered sSFRs of the same CL-AGN hosts from resolved integral-field spectroscopy of the galaxy outside the nucleus and compare them with the SDSS-fiber Prospector values; if the two disagree systematically with the expected AGN fraction, residual nuclear light is biasing the comparison and the host-similarity conclusion would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that CL-AGN state transitions do not depend on the host galaxy's formation history on large spatial scales. At $z<0.15$ about $43^{+13}_{-12}\%$ of gold-sample CL-AGN are star-forming and $29^{+13}_{-10}\%$ lie in the Green Valley of the stellar mass–sSFR plane; at $z>0.15$ the fractions are $57^{+13}_{-18}\%$ and $29^{+19}_{-14}\%$. None of the CL-AGN samples differ statistically from matched Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 hosts in sSFR, $t_{50}$, $t_{90}$, or star-formation duration, and turn-on versus turn-off CL-AGN hosts are also indistinct. The star-formation histories are qualitatively flat, with no evidence of starbursts in the past several Gyr and no rapid quenching in Green Valley hosts. The paper interprets the similarity across all Seyfert types as evidence that changing-look behavior may be a general AGN phenomenon driven by nuclear-scale or accretion-disk effects rather than by galaxy-wide quenching or mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the narrow-line SDSS spectrum, with emission lines masked, retains so little AGN continuum that the Prospector fit recovers the true host-galaxy star-formation rate and star-formation history; if residual AGN light contaminates the spectrum, the inferred similarity to Seyfert hosts could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CL-AGN hosts are ordinary Seyfert hosts, then changing-look episodes are not a sign that a galaxy has just quenched or merged, and searches for CL-AGN need not target Green Valley galaxies.
  • The absence of post-starburst hosts argues against a tidal-disruption-event origin for most CL-AGN, because TDEs are overrepresented in post-starburst galaxies.
  • The similar star-formation histories of CL-AGN and Seyfert 2 hosts support a slow-quenching or rejuvenation picture in which residual gas feeds both star formation and AGN activity.
  • Fitting the same galaxy in its broad-line and narrow-line states recovers the same stellar mass, but the SFR is overestimated by $0.89^{+0.37}_{-0.56}$ dex in the broad-line state, providing a calibration for SPS-derived SFRs in luminous AGN hosts.
  • If all AGN can change look, changing-look transitions add a short timescale to AGN variability that accretion physics must explain independently of host galaxy properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the nuclear-scale interpretation is right, high-resolution observations of circumnuclear gas and stellar populations should finally reveal differences between CL-AGN and ordinary Seyferts, while galaxy-wide quantities keep looking identical.
  • The conclusion implies that the CL-AGN fraction among Seyferts should be roughly constant across the star-forming main sequence; current spectroscopic monitoring campaigns can test this by comparing transition rates per unit galaxy mass in star-forming versus quiescent hosts.
  • The 0.89 dex broad-line SFR offset suggests AGN continuum mimics recent star formation, so other stellar-population studies of broad-line AGN hosts may be systematically overestimating current star formation; re-fitting such hosts in narrow-line states would quantify the bias.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same pipeline to a larger sample with uniform emission-line measurements and direct Balmer absorption tracers, which would separate genuine quenching from AGN contamination in the Green Valley population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Prospector with the non-parametric continuity_psb_sfh star formation history template to fit SDSS narrow-line spectra of 39 CL-AGN host galaxies (21 in a purified 'gold' sample and 18 in a 'silver' sample). The recovered stellar masses, sSFRs, t50, t90, and star formation history shapes are compared with mass/redshift-matched samples of Seyfert 1, Seyfert 2, low-luminosity Seyfert 2, star-forming, and quiescent galaxies. The authors find no statistically significant differences between CL-AGN hosts and other Seyfert hosts in these properties, no evidence for rapid quenching in the Green Valley CL-AGN, and no significant difference between turn-on and turn-off CL-AGN hosts. They conclude that CL-AGN state transitions are not associated with the large-scale formation history of their host galaxies and may instead originate from nuclear-scale or accretion-disk effects.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an important negative result for the CL-AGN field, arguing against galaxy-wide quenching or post-starburst/TDE-related triggers and in favor of nuclear or accretion-disk mechanisms. The paper's strengths include a careful definition of a gold versus silver sample, a mock-validation suite that uses real SDSS noise and quasar contamination, an additional post-starburst mock test, an explicit broad-line versus narrow-line comparison in Section 5, a transparent calibration scheme in Appendix A, and a systematic exploration of model choices in Section 6.4. The authors also provide detailed tables of fitted parameters in Appendix C. The main limitations are the small sample size and statistical power for the central null result, and an incomplete exploration of residual off-state AGN continuum contamination in the mock tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §4.3] The central null result rests on a gold sample of 21 objects and a large battery of bootstrapped Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square tests reported without any multiple-comparison control. With n=21, and with subsamples as small as seven (e.g., turn-off CL-AGN in §4.2.1), the tests have limited power to detect real differences. The absence of significant p-values therefore does not by itself support the strong conclusion that CL-AGN state transitions are 'not associated' with host formation history. The authors should report effect sizes or confidence intervals on the differences and ideally a power analysis, or should explicitly temper the conclusion to 'no significant differences detected.'
  2. [§3.2] The AGN-contamination mocks inject a luminous quasar template from Shen et al. (2011) at z=0.3, but the off-state spectra used in the science fits are narrow-line Seyfert spectra that may retain a fainter, redder AGN power-law continuum or a Balmer continuum after line masking. Because the comparison Seyfert samples are processed with the same pipeline, a shared residual AGN continuum could bias recovered sSFR and SFH shapes toward similarity, directly affecting the core claim of indistinguishability. The authors should validate recovery using more realistic off-state AGN continua (e.g., a reddened power law without broad lines) over the S/N range of the actual sample, or fit an explicit AGN continuum component alongside the stellar population.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 5] The main recovery test generates mock spectra with the same continuity_psb_sfh template that is used for the fits, so it primarily demonstrates internal consistency of the sampler rather than unbiased recovery of the true, unknown SFH shapes. Section 3.3 is a valuable partial check, but it uses only 25 post-starburst mocks and reports mass and SFR recovery, not a quantitative test of t50/t90 or SFH shape recovery with AGN contamination. The claim that SFH shape is reliably recovered for AGN hosts would be substantially strengthened if the post-starburst mocks also included AGN contamination and were analyzed with the same summary statistics used in the science comparisons.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §6] The text contains a duplicated word in '50+13−13% of of z>0.15' and the asymmetric error notation is inconsistent in places (e.g., '33+14−2%' in Section 6 appears to use a different convention from the '33+14−12%' style used elsewhere).
  2. [§3.3] The phrase 'a median value of 0.25+0.17-0.09 dex, or about 2 M⊙ yr−1' incorrectly equates a dex offset in stellar mass with units of star formation rate; this should be rephrased as a log-mass offset only.
  3. [Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4] Several objects have very large SFR errors (e.g., Log(SFR) = −4.74 with σ = 12.36), indicating that the values are upper limits; these should be explicitly flagged (e.g., with 'UL') and the treatment of such limits described in the table caption.
  4. [§5] In the broad-line versus narrow-line comparison, the statement that 'the only difference in the input parameters is the width of the mask' is slightly misleading because the 50, 30, and 20 Å masks from Section 3.1 are also replaced by different widths; it would be clearer to state the exact mask widths used for the broad-line fits in one place.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor closed-loop mock validation and a non-load-bearing self-citation; central claim rests on an independent empirical comparison.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, 'Evaluating Prospector with Mock Data for AGN and non-AGN']
    "We test the performance of the continuity_psb_sfh template by generating 10^5 mock spectra using Prospector. We use the built-in build_model functionality in Prospector, which is normally used to forward-model spectra in fitting, to generate a suite of mock galaxy spectra using the continuity_psb_sfh template. ... We then re-fit these spectra using the same pipeline we use for our real CL-AGN spectra."

    The mock 'truth' is generated from the same non-parametric continuity_psb_sfh template that is later used to fit the mock spectra, so the recovered mass/SFR/SFH agreement is partly built into the test: any template shape assumptions are shared by the generator and the fitter and cannot be detected by this closed loop. If this were the only validation, the claim that the pipeline reliably recovers SFH shapes would be self-referential. The paper does provide independent checks (parametric post-starburst mocks in Sec. 3.3 and recovery of the known ASASSN-14li starburst in Sec. 6.2.1), so the central conclusion does not rest on this loop. This is a mild self-consistency issue rather than a load-bearing circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim from Prospector fits to observed SDSS spectra of 39 CL-AGN hosts and compares the resulting stellar masses, sSFRs, t50/t90, and SFH shapes with independently selected non-AGN and Seyfert comparison samples processed through the same pipeline. No parameter is fitted to the CL-AGN sample and then reported as a prediction; the comparison samples are matched only in mass/redshift or i-band magnitude/redshift, which does not pre-impose SFH similarity. The mock recovery in Sec. 3.2 is a self-consistency check because the mocks are generated with the same continuity_psb_sfh template used for fitting, so this step alone cannot validate the template's shape assumptions; however, the authors also test an independent parametric post-starburst template (Sec. 3.3) and recover the known starburst in ASASSN-14li (Sec. 6.2.1), which are external checks. The Suess et al. (2022a,b) template is a self-citation by a coauthor, but the internal and external tests make it non-load-bearing. The Appendix A SFR calibration shifts all samples by a common offset and does not affect the relative CL-AGN vs. Seyfert comparisons that support the null result. Overall, the central claim is not defined into the inputs; the only issue is a mild closed-loop mock validation and a minor self-citation, giving a score of 2 rather than 0.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are calibration offsets and analysis thresholds; the axioms are the standard SPS and observational assumptions. The paper is an empirical fitting study, so the main burden is carried by the Prospector model and the AGN-contamination assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • SFR calibration offset = +0.66 dex in Log(SFR)
    Derived in Appendix A as the median difference between Prospector fits with and without photometric calibration for comparison galaxies; applied to all CL-AGN and comparison SFRs. This offset directly shifts the star-forming/Green Valley/quiescent classifications.
  • Stellar mass calibration offset = +0.37 dex in Log(M*)
    Same derivation in Appendix A; applied to all masses and affects the sSFR normalization and position relative to the star-forming main sequence.
  • SFR recovery limit = Log(SFR) = -3 (M_sun/yr)
    Set in Section 3.2 from the scatter in mock recovery; used as an upper limit for nondetections and influences the shape of the low-SFR end of the distributions.
  • Main sequence classification boundaries = Star-forming within 0.5 dex of Whitaker et al. (2012); Green Valley 0.5-1.5 dex below; quiescent >1.5 dex below
    Chosen in Section 4.2; these thresholds determine the headline fractions such as 43% star-forming among z<0.15 gold CL-AGN.
  • Redshift split = z = 0.15
    Chosen in Section 4.1 to match prior literature; the reported low- and high-redshift fractions depend on this split.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FSPS/MILES/MIST stellar population models accurately represent the stellar emission of AGN host galaxies
    The entire SED fitting pipeline relies on the adopted stellar libraries and isochrones (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The narrow-line spectrum of a CL-AGN, after masking emission lines, is dominated by host galaxy light with negligible remaining AGN continuum
    Section 3.1 masks emission lines but does not subtract an AGN continuum component; mock tests in Section 3.2 approximate AGN contamination with a quasar template.
  • domain assumption The SDSS 3-arcsecond fiber at z>0.03 traces the galaxy-scale stellar population relevant to large-scale quenching
    Redshift cut in Section 2 reduces aperture bias, but the fiber covers only the central few kpc; the conclusion is scoped to 'large spatial scales'.
  • domain assumption The Whitaker et al. (2012) redshift-dependent star-forming main sequence is applicable over z=0.03-0.4
    Used in Section 4.2 for classification; the choice of main sequence affects absolute fractions but not the relative CL-AGN versus Seyfert comparison.
  • domain assumption The continuity_psb_sfh template recovers true star formation histories, including starbursts, from SDSS-quality spectra
    Validated with mocks in Sections 3.2-3.3 and with ASASSN-14li in Figure 14, but it remains a model assumption.
  • domain assumption Comparison samples selected by mass-redshift or i-band-redshift matching are representative of the underlying AGN and non-AGN populations
    The Euclidean matching in Section 2.2 assumes these proxies select galaxies with comparable host properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Star Formation Histories of Changing-Look AGN Host Galaxies with Prospector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FI7AX32

@misc{pith2026250619162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Star Formation Histories of Changing-Look AGN Host Galaxies with Prospector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FI7AX32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19162}
}
abstract

Changing-look active galactic nuclei, or CL-AGN, are AGN which appear to transition between Seyfert Type 1 and 2 over periods of months to years. Several mechanisms to trigger these transitions have been proposed, but we have yet to conclusively determine their cause. Recent studies suggest CL-AGN are hosted primarily in galaxies which are shutting down star formation (Dodd et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2021, Wang et al. 2023), which may indicate a link between galaxy quenching and changing look events. We use Prospector stellar population synthesis software (Leja et al. 2017; Johnson & Leja 2017; Johnson et al. 2021) to model non-parametric star formation histories for 39 CL-AGN host galaxies. We find that $43^{+13}_{-12}\%$ of our gold sample CL-AGN at z < 0.15 are star forming, while $29^{+13}_{-10}\%$ fall in the Green Valley of the stellar mass-sSFR diagram. At z > 0.15, $57^{+13}_{-18}\%$ of CL-AGN in the gold sample are star-forming and $29^{+19}_{-14}\%$ are in the Green Valley. CL-AGN hosts have similar star formation properties to the host galaxies of Seyfert 1 and 2 AGN at z < 0.15 and to Seyfert 2 AGN at z > 0.15. We find no statistically significant differences in the star formation properties of turn-on and turn-off CL-AGN. We also find no evidence for rapid quenching in the Green Valley CL-AGN. We conclude that CL-AGN state transitions are not associated with the formation history of CL-AGN host galaxies on large spatial scales, implying CL-AGN state transitions may instead result from nuclear-scale or accretion disk effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SDSS spectra at two epochs for a changing-look AGN from Ruan et al. (2016). The continuum emission dims and the broad Hα and Hβ emission lines disappear between the two epochs as the AGN transitions from a Seyfert Type 1 to Type 2, making this a “turn-off” CL-AGN. stars than the host galaxies of other Seyfert AGN (Jin et al. 2021) and lie in either the Green Valley (Dodd et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2021; Wang et al. 202… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison sample selection for our CL-AGN host galaxy sample. Smaller markers indicate the “silver” sample as described in Section 2. (Top) Comparison low￾luminosity (“Low-L”) Seyfert 2- and non-AGN hosts are se￾lected from the MPA-JHU value-added catalog from SDSS Data Release 7 (Aihara et al. 2011; Brinchmann et al. 2004, shown here as gray contours). We assign each CL-AGN with comparison galaxies with the minimu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the input and recovered mass, metallicity, and dust extinction of our mock galaxy spectra. Solid lines indicate the median difference in re￾covered versus input values, while dashed lines indicate the 16th and 84th percentile values. “QSO” denotes mock spectra with added AGN emission, and “Parametric” de￾notes mock spectra generated with a delayed-tau plus ex￾ponential burst star formation history… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the input and recovered star formation rate from our non-parametric Prospector fits. Solid lines indicate the median difference in recovered versus input values, while dashed lines indicate the 16th and 84th percentile values. “QSO” denotes mock spec…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average input and recovered star formation histories for the mock spectra described in Section 3.2. The top two panels represent spectra generated with the continuity psb sfh template, without (top) and with (sec￾ond from top) added AGN emission. The second panel from …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of each sample which is classified as star forming, Green Valley, or quiescent based on star formation and stellar mass. Classifications are based on the Whitaker et al. (2012) star forming main sequence for the redshift of each individual object. Fraction…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Mass-sSFR relationship for all samples discussed in this paper. The relation shown is the redshift-dependent mass-sSFR relation from Whitaker et al. (2012) at z = 0.126, the median redshift of our sample. Large marker size indicates the Gold sample, while small …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass-sSFR for the turn-on, turn-off, and repeat￾ing CL-AGN. Gray contours represent the MPA-JHU sam￾ple; the gray error bars in the bottom right are median er￾rors across the sample. Most turn-on and turn-off CL-AGN hosts are on the star-forming main sequence, with sta…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Kernel smoothed density distributions of time since 50 (left) and 90% (center) of the mass formed in each galaxy and star formation duration for each combined sample (right). Galaxies with higher t50 and t90 formed their mass earlier. Values under 0 are an artifact of…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Combined star formation histories for each sample in this paper at z < 0.15 (top) and z > 0.15 (bottom). The CL-AGN hosts have qualitatively similar star formation histories to other Seyfert hosts. There is no evidence of significant starbursts in the combined CL-AGN …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Median (lines) and 25th–75th percentile (shaded region) star formation histories for star-forming (blue/solid), Green Valley (green/dashed), and quiescent (red/dotted) CL-AGN host galaxies. The top panel shows CL-AGN host star formation histories at z < 0.15; the bott…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stellar masses (top) and SFRs (bottom) recov￾ered when fitting the broad-line versus narrow-line spectrum for each object. We see some scatter but no significant offset in the recovered stellar mass for the same object (0.13+0.22 −0.27 dex). However, increased emissio…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A comparison of CL-AGN host galaxy star formation histories at z < 0.15 (top) and z > 0.15 (bottom) with the star formation history of ASASSN-14li, a well-studied TDE in a post-starburst galaxy (Jose et al. 2014; French et al. 2016; Holoien et al. 2016; Prieto et al. …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Results of our fitting with and without calibrating a polynomial fit to the photometry. (Top) Our recovered surviving stellar masses are higher by a median value of 0.37 dex when we include photometry in the fit. (Bottom) Our recovered star formation rates are higher …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. The Delay Time Distribution of Quasi-Periodic Eruptions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QPE host galaxies are more likely to have recently formed a large burst of stars (burst mass fraction above 1%) than TDE host galaxies or mass- and redshift-matched controls.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    9 nk| c#_4 ƴCB L I& ښ ɥK 1&q߫xp7K3(/n͝4ş+ t:S odS 檼0]>2 5 K= y ROlqfjF7Kޞ: 訖 3N Vq<<[g*ٰT Ȕ|Z E&9? ۟R udǃO# ^NX m) ? C-cyB<q kM\ lcW VyaqRwE) |A)&YF l *dz )m(

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    2011, , 193, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara , H., Allende Prieto , C., An , D., et al. 2011, , 193, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  3. [3]

    M., & Hickox , R

    Alexander , D. M., & Hickox , R. C. 2012, , 56, 93, 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  4. [4]

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

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  5. [5]

    1993, , 31, 473, 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    Antonucci , R. 1993, , 31, 473, 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353

    arXiv 1993

  6. [6]

    2014, , 793, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    Arcavi , I., Gal-Yam , A., Sullivan , M., et al. 2014, , 793, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 142 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5, 10.1086/130766

    1981 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Hearin , A

    Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143, 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    F., McIntosh , D

    Bell , E. F., McIntosh , D. H., Katz , N., & Weinberg , M. D. 2003, , 149, 289, 10.1086/378847

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Watson , M

    Birchall , K. L., Watson , M. G., Aird , J., & Starling , R. L. C. 2023, , 523, 4756, 10.1093/mnras/stad1723

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    R., & Roweis , S

    Blanton , M. R., & Roweis , S. 2007, , 133, 734, 10.1086/510127

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Brinchmann , J., Charlot , S., White , S. D. M., et al. 2004, , 351, 1151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    2004

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19297

    Buchner , J., Starck , H., Salvato , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19297, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19297

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann , T

    Calzetti , D., Kinney , A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann , T. 1994, , 429, 582, 10.1086/174346

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, , 219, 8, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    Chang , Y.-Y., van der Wel , A., da Cunha , E., & Rix , H.-W. 2015, , 219, 8, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/8

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Charlton , P. J. L., Ruan , J. J., Haggard , D., et al. 2019, , 876, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ec1

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Chen , X., Madau , P., Sesana , A., & Liu , F. K. 2009, , 697, L149, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L149

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Conroy , C., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy , C., Gunn , J. E., & White , M. 2009, , 699, 486, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    N., et al

    Cristello , N., Zou , F., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2024, , 962, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2177

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Law-Smith , J

    Dodd , S. A., Law-Smith , J. A. P., Auchettl , K., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Foley , R. J. 2021, ApJl, 907, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd852

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Nukala , A., Connor , I., et al

    Dodd , S. A., Nukala , A., Connor , I., et al. 2023, , 959, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1112

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07335, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07335

    Dong , Q., Zhang , Z.-X., Gu , W.-M., Sun , M., & Zheng , Y.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07335, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07335

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Dressler , A., & Shectman , S. A. 1987, , 94, 899, 10.1086/114524

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    C., & Trump , J

    Elitzur , M., Ho , L. C., & Trump , J. R. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3340, 10.1093/mnras/stt2445

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, 10.33232/001c.129235

    Ellison , S., Ferreira , L., Bickley , R., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, 10.33232/001c.129235

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    J., et al

    Frederick , S., Gezari , S., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 883, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A. 2016, , 818, L21, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L21

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    2017, , 835, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/176

    ---. 2017, , 835, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/176

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    D., Earl , N., Novack , A

    French , K. D., Earl , N., Novack , A. B., et al. 2023, , 950, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd249

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A. I. 2020, , 216, 32, 10.1007/s11214-020-00657-y

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    B., et al

    Gezari , S., Hung , T., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2017, , 835, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    2017 doi

  34. [44]

    J., Pulgarin-Duque , L., Anderson , S

    Green , P. J., Pulgarin-Duque , L., Anderson , S. F., et al. 2022, , 933, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac743f

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    E., Setton , D., Bezanson , R., et al

    Greene , J. E., Setton , D., Bezanson , R., et al. 2020, ApJl, 899, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba534

    2020 doi

  36. [46]

    E., Zakamska , N

    Greene , J. E., Zakamska , N. L., Ho , L. C., & Barth , A. J. 2011, , 732, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/9

    2011 doi

  37. [47]

    A., et al

    Guo , W.-J., Zou , H., Fawcett , V. A., et al. 2024 a , , 270, 26, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    L., et al

    Guo , W.-J., Zou , H., Greenwell , C. L., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00402, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00402

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  40. [50]

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

    1980

  41. [51]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07169, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07169

    Hern \'a ndez-Garc \' a , L., Chakraborty , J., S \'a nchez-S \'a ez , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07169, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.07169

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    C., Mullaney , J

    Hickox , R. C., Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., et al. 2014, , 782, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/9

    2014 doi

  43. [53]

    2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson , E., Handley , W., Hobson , M., & Lasenby , A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Kochanek , C. S., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2016, , 455, 2918, 10.1093/mnras/stv2486

    2016 doi

  45. [55]

    J., Wolf , C., Onken , C

    Hon , W. J., Wolf , C., Onken , C. A., Webster , R., & Auchettl , K. 2022, , 511, 54, 10.1093/mnras/stab3694

    2022 doi

  46. [56]

    F., Hernquist , L., Martini , P., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Hernquist , L., Martini , P., et al. 2005, , 625, L71, 10.1086/431146

    2005 doi

  47. [57]

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

    2007 doi

  48. [58]

    J., et al

    Jana , A., Ricci , C., Temple , M. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08676. 2411.08676

    2024 arXiv

  49. [59]

    2017, , 850, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    Jiang , N., Wang , T., Yan , L., et al. 2017, , 850, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93f5

    2017 doi

  50. [60]

    J., Haggard , D., et al

    Jin , X., Ruan , J. J., Haggard , D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb17

    2021 doi

  51. [61]

    2017, Bd-J/Prospector: Initial Release , v0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    Johnson , B., & Leja , J. 2017, Bd-J/Prospector: Initial Release , v0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    2024, dfm/python-fsps: v0.4.7 , v0.4.7, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12447779

    Johnson , B., Foreman-Mackey , D., Sick , J., et al. 2024, dfm/python-fsps: v0.4.7 , v0.4.7, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12447779

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    Johnson , B. D. 2021, bd-j/sedpy: sedpy v0.2.0 (v0.2.0) , Zenodo

    2021

  54. [64]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6777, 1

    Jose , J., Guo , Z., Long , F., et al. 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6777, 1

    2014

  56. [68]

    Kaur , K., & Stone , N. C. 2025, , 979, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b86

    2025 doi

  57. [69]

    C., Chojnowski , S

    Keel , W. C., Chojnowski , S. D., Bennert , V. N., et al. 2012, , 420, 878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20101.x

    2012

  58. [70]

    F., Meiron , Y., Shukirgaliyev , B., et al

    Kennedy , G. F., Meiron , Y., Shukirgaliyev , B., et al. 2016, , 460, 240, 10.1093/mnras/stw908

    2016 doi

  59. [71]

    C., & Evans , N

    Kennicutt , R. C., & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  60. [72]

    R., Pringle , J

    King , A. R., Pringle , J. E., & Hofmann , J. A. 2008, , 385, 1621, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12943.x

    2008

  61. [73]

    2019, MNRAS, 491, 4615, 10.1093/mnras/stz3397

    Kokubo, M., & Minezaki, T. 2019, MNRAS, 491, 4615, 10.1093/mnras/stz3397

    2019 doi

  62. [74]

    Kormendy , J., & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  63. [75]

    2013, , 775, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    Kriek , M., & Conroy , C. 2013, , 775, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    2013 doi

  64. [76]

    M., Cales , S., Moran , E

    LaMassa , S. M., Cales , S., Moran , E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 144, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144

    2015 doi

  65. [77]

    C., Johnson , B

    Leja , J., Carnall , A. C., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2019 a , , 876, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    2019 doi

  66. [78]

    D., Conroy , C., & van Dokkum , P

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., & van Dokkum , P. 2018, , 854, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db

    2018 doi

  67. [79]

    D., Conroy , C., et al

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., et al. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 352, Uncovering Early Galaxy Evolution in the ALMA and JWST Era, ed. E. da Cunha , J. Hodge , J. Afonso , L. Pentericci , & D. Sobral , 99--102, 10.1017/S1743921319009025

    2020 doi

  68. [80]

    D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P. G., & Byler , N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    2017 doi

  69. [81]

    D., Conroy , C., et al

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., et al. 2019 b , , 877, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    2019 doi

  70. [82]

    J., Schawinski , K., Keel , W., et al

    Lintott , C. J., Schawinski , K., Keel , W., et al. 2009, , 399, 129, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15299.x

    2009

  71. [83]

    2021, , 915, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82c

    Liu , W.-J., Lira , P., Yao , S., et al. 2021, , 915, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82c

    2021 doi

  72. [84]

    L., Bernal , S., et al

    L \'o pez-Navas , E., Mart \' nez-Aldama , M. L., Bernal , S., et al. 2022, , 513, L57, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac033

    2022 doi

  73. [85]

    2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  74. [86]

    B., Malaguti , G., & Palumbo , G

    Malizia , A., Bassani , L., Stephen , J. B., Malaguti , G., & Palumbo , G. G. C. 1997, , 113, 311, 10.1086/313057

    1997 doi

  75. [87]

    2009, , 707, 250, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    Martig , M., Bournaud , F., Teyssier , R., & Dekel , A. 2009, , 707, 250, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    2009 doi

  76. [88]

    F., Bournaud , F., et al

    Martig , M., Crocker , A. F., Bournaud , F., et al. 2013, , 432, 1914, 10.1093/mnras/sts594

    2013 doi

  77. [89]

    2024, , 961, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    Masterson , M., De , K., Panagiotou , C., et al. 2024, , 961, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb

    2024 doi

  78. [90]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x

    Matt, G., Guainazzi, M., & Maiolino, R. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 422, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06539.x

    2003

  79. [91]

    C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Melchor , D., Mockler , B., Naoz , S., Rose , S. C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, , 960, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0

    2024 doi

  80. [92]

    2023, , 524, 4778, 10.1093/mnras/stad2070

    Ni , Q., Aird , J., Merloni , A., et al. 2023, , 524, 4778, 10.1093/mnras/stad2070

    2023 doi

  81. [93]

    2018, , 480, 3898, 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda , H., & Done , C. 2018, , 480, 3898, 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    2018 doi

  82. [94]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  83. [95]

    2012, , 548, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220142

    P \^a ris , I., Petitjean , P., Aubourg , \'E ., et al. 2012, , 548, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220142

    2012 doi

  84. [96]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  85. [97]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  86. [98]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  87. [99]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  88. [100]

    L., Kr \"u hler , T., Anderson , J

    Prieto , J. L., Kr \"u hler , T., Anderson , J. P., et al. 2016, , 830, L32, 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L32

    2016 doi

  89. [101]

    M., Mattila , S., Efstathiou , A., et al

    Reynolds , T. M., Mattila , S., Efstathiou , A., et al. 2022, , 664, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243289

    2022 doi

  90. [102]

    2022, Changing-look Active Galactic Nuclei, 10.48550/ARXIV.2211.05132

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2022, Changing-look Active Galactic Nuclei, 10.48550/ARXIV.2211.05132

    2022 doi arXiv

  91. [103]

    2007, , 659, L111, 10.1086/517884

    Risaliti , G., Elvis , M., Fabbiano , G., et al. 2007, , 659, L111, 10.1086/517884

    2007 doi

  92. [104]

    B., & Mushotzky , R

    Roth , N., van Velzen , S., Cenko , S. B., & Mushotzky , R. F. 2021, , 910, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abdf50

    2021 doi

  93. [105]

    J., Anderson , S

    Ruan , J. J., Anderson , S. F., Cales , S. L., et al. 2016, , 826, 188, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/188

    2016 doi

  94. [106]

    Ryu , T., McKernan , B., Ford , K. E. S., et al. 2024, , 527, 8103, 10.1093/mnras/stad3487

    2024 doi

  95. [107]

    2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, 10.2298/SAJ1489001S

    Salim , S. 2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, 10.2298/SAJ1489001S

    2014 doi

  96. [108]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., Gorgas , J., Cardiel , N., & Gonz \'a lez , J. J. 2006, , 457, 809, 10.1051/0004-6361:20064845

    2006 doi

  97. [109]

    Schawinski , K., Koss , M., Berney , S., & Sartori , L. F. 2015, , 451, 2517, 10.1093/mnras/stv1136

    2015 doi

  98. [110]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889, 10.1093/mnras/stu327

    2014 doi

  99. [111]

    P., Richards , G

    Schneider , D. P., Richards , G. T., Hall , P. B., et al. 2010, , 139, 2360, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360

    2010 doi

  100. [112]

    T., Strauss , M

    Shen , Y., Richards , G. T., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2011, , 194, 45, 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    2011 doi

  101. [113]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  102. [114]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, 10.1002/asna.20210065

    S niegowska, M., Grzkedzielski, M., Czerny, B., & Janiuk, A. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, 10.1002/asna.20210065

    2021 doi

  103. [115]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  104. [116]

    C., Generozov , A., Vasiliev , E., & Metzger , B

    Stone , N. C., Generozov , A., Vasiliev , E., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, , 480, 5060, 10.1093/mnras/sty2045

    2018 doi

  105. [117]

    C., Vasiliev , E., Kesden , M., et al

    Stone , N. C., Vasiliev , E., Kesden , M., et al. 2020, , 216, 35, 10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4

    2020 doi

  106. [119]

    2022 b , ApJ, 935, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b0

    ---. 2022 b , ApJ, 935, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b0

    2022 doi

  107. [120]

    Teboul , O., & Perets , H. B. 2025, , 984, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc09f

    2025 doi

  108. [121]

    A., Bell , E

    Terrazas , B. A., Bell , E. F., Henriques , B. M. B., et al. 2016, , 830, L12, 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L12

    2016 doi

  109. [122]

    2022, , 667, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244987

    Tozzi , G., Lusso , E., Casetti , L., et al. 2022, , 667, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244987

    2022 doi

  110. [123]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., MacLeod , C. L., et al. 2019, , 883, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4

    2019 doi

  111. [124]

    A., Heckman , T

    Tremonti , C. A., Heckman , T. M., Kauffmann , G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898, 10.1086/423264

    2004 doi

  112. [125]

    M., & Padovani , P

    Urry , C. M., & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803, 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  113. [126]

    P., & V \'e ron , P

    V \'e ron-Cetty , M. P., & V \'e ron , P. 2010, , 518, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014188

    2010 doi

  114. [127]

    A., & Cignoni , M

    Veronese , S., Vignali , C., Severgnini , P., Matzeu , G. A., & Cignoni , M. 2024, , 683, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348098

    2024 doi

  115. [128]

    2024, , 529, 3610, 10.1093/mnras/stae728

    Vijarnwannaluk , B., Akiyama , M., Schramm , M., et al. 2024, , 529, 3610, 10.1093/mnras/stae728

    2024 doi

  116. [129]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  117. [130]

    W., Cao , X., et al

    Wang , J., Xu , D. W., Cao , X., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10663, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10663

    2024 doi arXiv

  118. [131]

    K., Brink , T

    Wang , J., Zheng , W. K., Brink , T. G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16521, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16521

    2023 doi arXiv

  119. [132]

    2024 b , , 960, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    Wang , M., Ma , Y., Wu , Q., & Jiang , N. 2024 b , , 960, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0bfb

    2024 doi

  120. [133]

    2024 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18131, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18131

    Wang , S., Woo , J.-H., Gallo , E., et al. 2024 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18131, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18131

    2024 doi arXiv

  121. [134]

    Wang , Y., Lin , D. N. C., Zhang , B., & Zhu , Z. 2024 d , , 962, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e5

    2024 doi

  122. [135]

    R., Harrison , C

    Ward , S. R., Harrison , C. M., Costa , T., & Mainieri , V. 2022, , 514, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/stac1219

    2022 doi

  123. [136]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  124. [137]

    M., van den Bosch , F

    Weinmann , S. M., van den Bosch , F. C., Yang , X., & Mo , H. J. 2006, , 366, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x

    2006

  125. [138]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  126. [139]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    Wevers , T., French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., et al. 2024, , 970, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f1b

    2024 doi

  127. [140]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., & Franx , M. 2012, , 754, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    2012 doi

  128. [141]

    Worthey , G., & Ottaviani , D. L. 1997, , 111, 377, 10.1086/313021

    1997 doi

  129. [142]

    J., Wu , X.-B., et al

    Yang , Q., Green , P. J., Wu , X.-B., et al. 2025, , 980, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ed

    2025 doi

  130. [143]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    Yang , Q., Wu , X.-B., Fan , X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3a

    2018 doi

  131. [144]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    Yu , X., Shi , Y., Chen , Y., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3985, 10.1093/mnras/staa2627

    2020 doi

  132. [145]

    2022, ApJl, 939, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47

    Zeltyn , G., Trakhtenbrot , B., Eracleous , M., et al. 2022, ApJl, 939, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a47

    2022 doi

  133. [146]

    2024, , 966, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    ---. 2024, , 966, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    2024 doi

  134. [147]

    2024, , 530, 3538, 10.1093/mnras/stae1044

    Zhu , L.-T., Li , J., Wang , Z., & Zhang , J.-J. 2024, , 530, 3538, 10.1093/mnras/stae1044

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.