pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13216 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Sparks II: Panchromatic SED modeling and galaxy physical properties across the starburst to post-starburst sequence

Dalya Baron , David J. Setton , Yilun Ma , J. X. Prochaska , Ric Davies , Jenny E. Greene , Dieter Lutz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords star formation ratesSED modelingpost-starburst galaxiesAGN activitygalaxy quenchingpanchromatic photometryBalmer absorptionProspector fits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Panchromatic SED modeling yields more accurate star formation rates than optical spectroscopy for starburst to post-starburst galaxies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares galaxy physical properties derived from optical stellar continuum spectroscopy versus full far-UV to far-IR photometry for 93 local massive galaxies in the rapid starburst to post-starburst transition. Optical fits dominated by strong Balmer absorption favor rapidly declining star formation histories and suppress estimates of ongoing activity. When benchmarked against Hα-based SFRs in the star-forming subset, optical Prospector fits underestimate rates by 0.76 dex while panchromatic SED fits show only a small offset and much lower scatter. The authors therefore adopt the panchromatic values for composite and AGN hosts, revealing higher ongoing star formation than optical data alone suggested.

Core claim

Fits to optical stellar continuum alone systematically favor rapidly declining SFHs and suppress ongoing star formation. Benchmarking against Hα-based SFRs shows that Prospector fits to the optical continuum spectroscopy underestimate the SFR by 0.76 dex (scatter 0.42 dex), whereas panchromatic SED-based SFRs perform better, with a -0.15 dex offset and 0.14 dex scatter. We therefore adopt the panchromatic SED-based SFRs for composite and AGN hosts, finding that many exhibit higher levels of star formation than previously inferred. The AGN torus model in Prospector successfully distinguishes optically-classified AGN but yields torus luminosities an order of magnitude below expectations from b

What carries the argument

Comparison of derived galaxy properties, especially star formation rates, between optical continuum spectroscopy and panchromatic spectral energy distribution (SED) modeling with the Prospector code.

If this is right

  • Optical spectroscopy alone favors rapidly declining star formation histories that suppress ongoing SFR estimates.
  • Panchromatic SED-based SFRs align much more closely with Hα-based measurements than optical-only fits do.
  • Many composite and AGN host galaxies in the sample show higher levels of star formation than previously inferred from optical data.
  • The AGN torus model distinguishes AGN from star-forming galaxies but returns torus luminosities an order of magnitude below bolometric expectations, suggesting low covering factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Higher adopted SFRs could lengthen the inferred duration of the starburst-to-quiescent transition phase in massive galaxies.
  • The offset implies that dust-obscured star formation remains significant even in systems with strong Balmer absorption.
  • This panchromatic approach may improve SFR estimates at higher redshifts where Hα is inaccessible from the ground.

Load-bearing premise

Hα-based star formation rates serve as an unbiased ground-truth benchmark without significant systematic uncertainties from dust, AGN contamination, or aperture effects.

What would settle it

Independent far-infrared or radio continuum SFR measurements in the same galaxies that fully account for dust, AGN contribution, and aperture matching would show whether Hα rates are systematically high or the optical fits are simply biased low.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13216 by Dalya Baron, David J. Setton, Dieter Lutz, Jenny E. Greene, J. X. Prochaska, Ric Davies, Yilun Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Sparks galaxy sample. The right panel shows the Sparks galaxies in the SFR versus stellar mass plane, where both properties have been extracted from the MPA-JHU catalog. The galaxies have been selected in the stellar mass range 1010 –1011 M⊙, showing SFRs ranging across about three orders of magnitude with respect to the star-forming main sequence (black dashed line with ±0.3 dex as a gray band; based … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example best-fitting SEDs obtained with Prospector. The four panels show the best-fitting photometric-only SEDs produced using Prospector with the ‘free obscuration’ model. Comparable fits are obtained with the ‘standard birth clouds’ model. The sources are labeled with their SDSS identifiers (plate?MJD?fiberID) and SDSS optical line-ratio classifications. The black points show ultraviolet to far-infrared … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example best-fitting SEDs obtained with MAGPHYS. Best-fitting ultraviolet?to?far-infrared photometric SEDs produced with MAGPHYS. Each panel is labeled with the source?s SDSS identifier (plate?MJD?fiberID) and its SDSS optical line-ratio classification. Black points show the observed photometry, with vertical lines indicating ±3σ uncertainties. Because MAGPHYS does not model upper limits, we treat these fl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Prospector fits to SDSS spectroscopy and multi-wavelength photometry. Each panel shows the best-fitting spectrum over the ultraviolet?optical range, modeled under the standard birth-cloud assumption. Photometric measurements are plotted as gray points, with their best-fitting model shown as a dotted gray line. The best fit to the SDSS spectrum is shown in black and rescaled to match the photo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of best-fitting stellar masses and SFRs for the spectroscopic and photometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of best-fitting SFHs from spectroscopic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differences in derived physical properties between spectroscopy and photometry are linked to differences in the SFH. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted versus observed L(60 µm) from photometric and spectroscopic Prospector fits. The panels show the predicted 60 µm luminosity from the multi-wavelength SED fit (left) and the optical spectroscopy fit (right). IRAS detections at 60 µm are marked with circles, and upper limits with left-pointing triangles. The markers are color-coded according to the MPA-JHU classification of the source, as indicated… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of stellar masses derived using different SPS fitting codes and modeling assumptions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of SFR(100 Myr) derived using different SPS fitting codes and modeling assumptions for star-forming galaxies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of SFR(10 Myr) derived using different SPS fitting codes and modeling assumptions for star-forming galaxies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Multi-wavelength SED fitting-based SFR(10 Myr) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Dust optical depth toward birth clouds across SPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the AGN torus contribution to mid-infrared wavelengths. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Optical line ratio diagnostic diagrams color-coded by the torus mid-infrared contribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of galaxy physical properties derived with and without the AGN torus component. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Predicted torus luminosity versus AGN bolometric luminosity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Sparks survey provides rest-frame near-infrared spectroscopy for 93 local massive galaxies spanning the rapid transition from starburst to post-starburst, including Balmer-strong galaxies as well as systems with active galactic nuclei (AGN). Interpreting these extreme systems requires reliable physical properties, yet these can vary substantially when derived from rest-frame optical spectroscopy versus multi-wavelength photometry, and across different fitting codes and assumptions. We assemble far-ultraviolet to far-infrared photometry for the Sparks sample and compare the resulting galaxy properties across data types and modeling approaches, identifying the final measurements adopted for the survey. With stellar masses recovered relatively robustly, we focus on the more model-dependent quantities of star formation rates (SFRs) and histories (SFHs), and AGN activity. Fits to optical stellar continuum alone, dominated by strong Balmer absorption, systematically favor rapidly declining SFHs and suppress ongoing star formation. Benchmarking against H$\alpha$-based SFRs in the star-forming Sparks galaxies shows that Prospector fits to the optical continuum spectroscopy underestimate the SFR by 0.76 dex (scatter 0.42 dex), whereas panchromatic SED-based SFRs perform better, with a -0.15 dex offset and 0.14 dex scatter. We therefore adopt the panchromatic SED-based SFRs for composite and AGN hosts, finding that many exhibit higher levels of star formation than previously inferred. Finally, we test the AGN torus model in Prospector, finding that it successfully distinguishes optically-classified AGN from star-forming galaxies, but yields torus luminosities an order of magnitude below expectations from AGN bolometric luminosities, possibly indicating intrinsically low covering factors in Sparks AGN shaped by black-hole feedback during coalescence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes panchromatic SED modeling using Prospector for the Sparks sample of 93 local massive galaxies spanning the starburst to post-starburst sequence, including Balmer-strong systems and AGN hosts. It compares galaxy physical properties (especially SFRs and SFHs) derived from optical stellar continuum spectroscopy alone versus full FUV-to-FIR photometry. Benchmarking against Hα-based SFRs in the star-forming subset shows optical-continuum fits underestimate SFR by 0.76 dex (0.42 dex scatter), while panchromatic fits have a -0.15 dex offset and 0.14 dex scatter. The authors therefore adopt panchromatic SED-based SFRs for composite and AGN hosts, concluding many exhibit higher star formation than previously inferred. They also test the AGN torus model, which distinguishes AGN but yields torus luminosities ~1 dex below bolometric expectations.

Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant for studies of galaxy quenching and AGN-galaxy co-evolution, as it quantifies how data type and modeling assumptions affect inferred SFRs and SFHs in extreme populations. The direct comparison of independent observables (optical spectra vs. panchromatic photometry) to an external Hα tracer is a strength, providing concrete guidance on when optical-only fits fail for Balmer-strong galaxies. Adopting panchromatic SFRs and finding elevated star formation in AGN hosts has implications for feedback models. The paper credits the clear quantitative offsets and the sample's focus on the transition phase.

major comments (2)
  1. [Benchmarking against Hα SFRs] Benchmarking section (near abstract claim and results on Hα comparison): The central recommendation to adopt panchromatic SED-based SFRs for composite/AGN hosts rests on Hα-derived SFRs as the reference. However, the manuscript does not provide a full error budget or sensitivity tests for potential systematics in the Hα benchmark, including dust attenuation uncertainties (Balmer decrement), AGN contamination to Hα, underlying stellar absorption corrections in Balmer-strong galaxies, or fiber-aperture losses relative to total photometry. These could alter the reported 0.76 dex and -0.15 dex offsets and the decision to prefer panchromatic values outside the star-forming subset.
  2. [AGN torus model test] AGN torus evaluation (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding results): The claim that the Prospector torus model successfully distinguishes optically-classified AGN but underpredicts luminosities by an order of magnitude is load-bearing for interpreting AGN activity in the sample. More detail is needed on the bolometric luminosity estimates used for comparison, the specific torus parameters fitted, and whether low covering factors are the favored interpretation or if model priors or wavelength coverage play a role.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could briefly note the size of the star-forming subset used for the Hα benchmarking to allow readers to assess statistical robustness.
  2. [Methods] Clarify in the methods section how SFH priors and dust attenuation parameters are chosen for the panchromatic vs. optical-only runs, as these are listed as free parameters and could influence the reported differences.
  3. [Results figures] Figure(s) showing the SFR comparison (optical vs. panchromatic vs. Hα) would benefit from explicit indication of the star-forming subset and any excluded points, along with the fitted offsets and scatters labeled directly on the plot.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to provide additional details, tests, and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Benchmarking section (near abstract claim and results on Hα comparison): The central recommendation to adopt panchromatic SED-based SFRs for composite/AGN hosts rests on Hα-derived SFRs as the reference. However, the manuscript does not provide a full error budget or sensitivity tests for potential systematics in the Hα benchmark, including dust attenuation uncertainties (Balmer decrement), AGN contamination to Hα, underlying stellar absorption corrections in Balmer-strong galaxies, or fiber-aperture losses relative to total photometry. These could alter the reported 0.76 dex and -0.15 dex offsets and the decision to prefer panchromatic values outside the star-forming subset.

    Authors: We agree that expanding the discussion of systematics in the Hα benchmark will improve the robustness of our analysis. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection on the error budget for Hα-derived SFRs. This will include: (1) quantification of dust attenuation uncertainties using the Balmer decrement with adopted extinction curves; (2) explicit checks for AGN contamination, noting that the benchmark sample is restricted to the star-forming subset with no optical AGN signatures; (3) details on stellar absorption corrections applied to Balmer lines in the context of strong absorption features; and (4) assessment of fiber-aperture effects, including comparisons to total photometry and any aperture corrections applied. We will also conduct and report sensitivity tests varying key assumptions (e.g., extinction law, aperture corrections) to evaluate impact on the reported offsets. These additions will support our adoption of panchromatic SFRs for composite and AGN hosts while transparently addressing potential limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: AGN torus evaluation (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding results): The claim that the Prospector torus model successfully distinguishes optically-classified AGN but underpredicts luminosities by an order of magnitude is load-bearing for interpreting AGN activity in the sample. More detail is needed on the bolometric luminosity estimates used for comparison, the specific torus parameters fitted, and whether low covering factors are the favored interpretation or if model priors or wavelength coverage play a role.

    Authors: We will revise the AGN torus model section to include the requested details. We will specify the method for deriving bolometric luminosities (combining optical emission-line ratios with standard bolometric corrections from the literature for the Sparks sample). We will report the key fitted torus parameters in Prospector, including the covering factor, optical depth, and viewing angle, along with their posterior distributions. We will discuss the influence of model priors and the wavelength coverage (FUV to FIR) on the results. While we interpret the ~1 dex underprediction as potentially indicating low covering factors shaped by black-hole feedback, we will also explicitly consider alternative explanations such as model limitations or incomplete wavelength sampling. This expanded discussion will clarify the interpretation without overclaiming. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper compares two independent fitting approaches (optical continuum spectroscopy vs. panchromatic SED modeling) to an external Hα-based SFR benchmark measured only in the star-forming subset. The reported offsets (0.76 dex underestimate for optical fits; -0.15 dex for panchromatic) and subsequent adoption of panchromatic SFRs for composite/AGN hosts follow directly from this empirical comparison without any reduction of the claimed result to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain by construction. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or renaming of known results are present in the derivation. The analysis is self-contained against the stated external tracer.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review cannot enumerate exact free parameters or axioms; typical Prospector SED fits involve multiple SFH, dust, and AGN parameters adjusted to data, plus the domain assumption that Hα traces SFR reliably.

free parameters (2)
  • SFH parameters
    Star-formation history parameters in Prospector are fitted to match observed spectra and photometry.
  • Dust attenuation parameters
    Dust properties are adjusted during SED fitting and affect derived SFRs.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hα emission provides an unbiased SFR benchmark
    Used to calibrate offsets between optical and panchromatic fits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1327 out tokens · 45377 ms · 2026-05-10T14:13:28.701738+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2016

  4. [4]

    flux densities

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to References 15pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =12.5pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =-2pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Eac...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.831784 2019

  5. [5]

    L., Rich, J

    Alatalo , K., Cales , S. L., Rich , J. A., et al. 2016 a , , 224, 38, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38 2016

  6. [6]

    2016b, ApJ, 827, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/106

    Alatalo , K., Lisenfeld , U., Lanz , L., et al. 2016 b , , 827, 106, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/106

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/106 2016

  7. [7]

    T., et al

    Almaini , O., Wild , V., Maltby , D. T., et al. 2017, , 472, 1401, 10.1093/mnras/stx1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Armus , L., Mazzarella , J. M., Evans , A. S., et al. 2009, , 121, 559, 10.1086/600092

    work page doi:10.1086/600092 2009

  9. [9]

    P., Tollerud, E

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  10. [10]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  11. [11]

    M., Lim, P

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  12. [12]

    2019, , 482, 3915, 10.1093/mnras/sty2935

    Baron , D., & Netzer , H. 2019, , 482, 3915, 10.1093/mnras/sty2935

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2935 2019

  13. [13]

    D., et al

    Baron , D., Netzer , H., French , K. D., et al. 2023, , 524, 2741, 10.1093/mnras/stad1792

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1792 2023

  14. [14]

    X., & Davies, R

    Baron , D., Netzer , H., Lutz , D., Prochaska , J. X., & Davies , R. I. 2022, , 509, 4457, 10.1093/mnras/stab3232

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3232 2022

  15. [15]

    F., & de Jong , R

    Bell , E. F., & de Jong , R. S. 2001, , 550, 212, 10.1086/319728

    work page doi:10.1086/319728 2001

  16. [16]

    B., & Ellis, R

    Belli , S., Newman , A. B., & Ellis , R. S. 2019, , 874, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

  17. [17]

    2013, , 551, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220859

    Berta , S., Lutz , D., Santini , P., et al. 2013, , 551, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220859

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220859 2013

  18. [18]

    N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W

    Best , P. N., Kondapally , R., Williams , W. L., et al. 2023, , 523, 1729, 10.1093/mnras/stad1308

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1308 2023

  19. [19]

    F., Satyapal, S., & Ellison, S

    Blecha , L., Snyder , G. F., Satyapal , S., & Ellison , S. L. 2018, , 478, 3056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1274

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1274 2018

  20. [20]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  22. [22]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  23. [23]

    L., & Brotherton, M

    Cales , S. L., & Brotherton , M. S. 2015, , 449, 2374, 10.1093/mnras/stv370

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv370 2015

  24. [24]

    S., & van Breugel, W

    Canalizo , G., Stockton , A., Brotherton , M. S., & van Breugel , W. 2000, , 119, 59, 10.1086/301190

    work page doi:10.1086/301190 2000

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Cappellari , M. 2023, , 526, 3273, 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  26. [26]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  27. [27]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  28. [28]

    Charlot , S., & Fall , S. M. 2000, , 539, 718, 10.1086/309250

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  29. [29]

    2018, , 861, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac324

    Chauke , P., van der Wel , A., Pacifici , C., et al. 2018, , 861, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac324

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac324 2018

  30. [30]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  31. [31]

    Cid Fernandes , R., Mateus , A., Sodr \'e , L., Stasi \'n ska , G., & Gomes , J. M. 2005, , 358, 363, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x 2005

  32. [32]

    2015, , 576, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425252

    Ciesla , L., Charmandaris , V., Georgakakis , A., et al. 2015, , 576, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425252 2015

  33. [33]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy , C. 2013, , 51, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  34. [34]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  35. [35]

    Conroy , C., White , M., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 708, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/58 2010

  36. [36]

    J., & Sharples, R

    Couch , W. J., & Sharples , R. M. 1987, , 229, 423, 10.1093/mnras/229.3.423

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/229.3.423 1987

  37. [37]

    2011, MAGPHYS: Multi-wavelength Analysis of Galaxy Physical Properties , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1106.010

    da Cunha , E., & Charlot , S. 2011, MAGPHYS: Multi-wavelength Analysis of Galaxy Physical Properties , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1106.010

    2011

  38. [38]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 1637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13699.x

    da Cunha , E., Charlot , S., & Elbaz , D. 2008, , 388, 1595, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x 2008

  39. [39]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Draine , B. T., Dale , D. A., Bendo , G., et al. 2007, , 663, 866, 10.1086/518306

    work page doi:10.1086/518306 2007

  41. [41]

    Dressler , A., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 270, 7, 10.1086/161093

    work page doi:10.1086/161093 1983

  42. [42]

    French , K. D. 2021, , 133, 072001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 2021

  43. [43]

    D., Yang, Y ., Zabludoff, A

    French , K. D., Yang , Y., Zabludoff , A. I., & Tremonti , C. A. 2018, , 862, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d 2018

  44. [44]

    D., Oemler A., Dressler A., Poggianti B., Vulcani B., Abramson L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/64 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...64G 770, 64

    Gladders , M. D., Oemler , A., Dressler , A., et al. 2013, , 770, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/64 2013

  45. [45]

    M., & Schaye, J

    Goulding , A. D., & Alexander , D. M. 2009, , 398, 1165, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15194.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15194.x 2009

  46. [46]

    Haskell , P., Das , S., Smith , D. J. B., et al. 2024, , 530, L7, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae019

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae019 2024

  47. [47]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman , T. M., & Best , P. N. 2014, , 52, 589, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  48. [48]

    Helou , G., & Walker , D. W. 1988, Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Catalogs and Atlases.Volume 7: The Small Scale Structure Catalog. , Tech. rep

    1988

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Hickox , R. C., & Alexander , D. M. 2018, , 56, 625, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 2018

  50. [50]

    C., Jones , C., Forman , W

    Hickox , R. C., Jones , C., Forman , W. R., et al. 2009, , 696, 891, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/891

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/891 2009

  51. [51]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  52. [52]

    E., Hainline , K

    Hviding , R. E., Hainline , K. N., Rieke , M., et al. 2022, , 163, 224, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e33 2022

  53. [53]

    2009, , 694, 751, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/751

    Imanishi , M. 2009, , 694, 751, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/751

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/2/751 2009

  54. [54]

    D., & Nelson , P

    Isobe , T., Feigelson , E. D., & Nelson , P. I. 1986, , 306, 490, 10.1086/164359

    work page doi:10.1086/164359 1986

  55. [55]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  56. [56]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  57. [57]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003 a , , 341, 33, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x 2003

  58. [58]

    P., & Haiman, Z

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003 b , , 346, 1055, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  59. [59]

    S., Xia, X

    Kaviraj , S., Kirkby , L. A., Silk , J., & Sarzi , M. 2007, , 382, 960, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12475.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12475.x 2007

  60. [60]

    2020, , 890, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655a

    Kawaguchi , T., Yutani , N., & Wada , K. 2020, , 890, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab655a 2020

  61. [61]

    D., Williams , R

    Kelson , D. D., Williams , R. J., Dressler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/110 2014

  62. [62]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley , L. J., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., Heisler , C. A., & Trevena , J. 2001, , 556, 121, 10.1086/321545

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  63. [63]

    G., Benson, A

    Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T. 2006, , 372, 961, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x 2006

  64. [64]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/9

    Kirkpatrick , A., Pope , A., Sajina , A., et al. 2015, , 814, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/9 2015

  65. [65]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811467

    Koleva , M., Prugniel , P., Bouchard , A., & Wu , Y. 2009, , 501, 1269, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811467

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811467 2009

  66. [66]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    Koss , M., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al. 2017, , 850, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9 2017

  67. [67]

    J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al

    Koss , M. J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al. 2022, , 261, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05 2022

  68. [68]

    G., et al

    Kriek , M., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2016, , 540, 248, 10.1038/nature20570

    work page doi:10.1038/nature20570 2016

  69. [69]

    W., & Schlegel, D

    Lang , D., Hogg , D. W., & Schlegel , D. J. 2016, , 151, 36, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36 2016

  70. [70]

    2017, , 471, 59, 10.1093/mnras/stx1374

    Lani , C., Netzer , H., & Lutz , D. 2017, , 471, 59, 10.1093/mnras/stx1374

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1374 2017

  71. [71]

    How to Measure Galaxy Star Formation Histories II: Nonparametric Models

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c 2019

  72. [72]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ApJ...854...62L 854, 62

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db 2018

  73. [73]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  74. [74]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a 2019

  75. [75]

    and Conroy, Charlie and Dav

    Lower , S., Narayanan , D., Leja , J., et al. 2020, , 904, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 2020

  76. [76]

    F., Comastri , A., et al

    Lusso , E., Hennawi , J. F., Comastri , A., et al. 2013, , 777, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/86 2013

  77. [77]

    T., Almaini, O., Wild, V ., et al

    Maltby , D. T., Almaini , O., Wild , V., et al. 2018, , 480, 381, 10.1093/mnras/sty1794

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1794 2018

  78. [78]

    G., Tanaka, M., et al

    Maraston , C., Pforr , J., Renzini , A., et al. 2010, , 407, 830, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16973.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16973.x 2010

  79. [79]

    , eprint =

    Martin , D. C., Fanson , J., Schiminovich , D., et al. 2005, , 619, L1, 10.1086/426387

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/426387 2005

  80. [80]

    J., et al

    Mateos , S., Alonso-Herrero , A., Carrera , F. J., et al. 2013, , 434, 941, 10.1093/mnras/stt953

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt953 2013

Showing first 80 references.