pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19426 · v1 · pith:QRU3QXS5new · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Dwarf and Intermediate-Mass Galaxies in MaNGA: Evidence for Different Evolutionary Trends

Chandan Watts , Gothai L , Sudhanshu Barway This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarf galaxiesgalaxy evolutionMaNGA surveystar formation rategalaxy morphologyenvironmental quenchingstellar populationslow-mass galaxies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dwarf galaxies and intermediate-mass galaxies follow separate evolutionary trends below 10^10 solar masses

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

The paper uses MaNGA survey data on thousands of galaxies to examine how stellar mass, morphology, specific star formation rate, and local environment interact across the mass spectrum. It shows that low-mass galaxies as a group are mostly star-forming and late-type spiral dominated, but splitting them at log stellar mass of 9.5 reveals that dwarfs below this threshold stay star-forming with only weak environmental dependence while intermediate-mass galaxies display clearer quenching in denser regions. Dwarf early-type galaxies also exhibit younger stellar populations than intermediate-mass early-types based on the D4000 index, implying slower quenching. Spiral galaxies show little sensitivity to this mass split. The results indicate the low-mass population is heterogeneous, so separate treatment of dwarfs and intermediate-mass systems is needed for proper interpretation of their evolution.

Core claim

By separating dwarf galaxies at log(M*/M⊙) ≤ 9.5 from intermediate-mass galaxies at 9.5 < log(M*/M⊙) < 10, the study finds that dwarfs remain predominantly star-forming with only weak dependence on local environment, whereas intermediate-mass galaxies show stronger trends toward quenching in denser environments. Dwarf ellipticals and lenticulars host systematically younger stellar populations than their intermediate-mass counterparts, indicating reduced quenching efficiency and more gradual environmental processing in the dwarf regime. This distinction is absent among spiral galaxies, whose properties appear insensitive to the dwarf versus intermediate-mass classification.

What carries the argument

The stellar mass division at log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 that distinguishes dwarf from intermediate-mass galaxies, tracked through specific star formation rate, local environmental density, morphological types, and the D4000 index as a measure of long-term stellar aging.

If this is right

  • Galaxy evolution models must treat dwarfs and intermediate-mass systems separately to capture the differing roles of environment in quenching.
  • Early-type galaxies in the dwarf regime experience more gradual stellar aging than those just above the mass threshold.
  • Studies of low-mass spirals can continue to group them without this split, but early-types require the distinction.
  • Unified low-mass samples in surveys will mask key differences unless subdivided at this mass scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Simulations of galaxy formation could be refined by incorporating mass-dependent responses to environment around this threshold to better match observed quenching rates.
  • The pattern suggests shallower gravitational potentials in dwarfs may allow them to retain gas longer despite external influences.
  • Extending similar splits to higher-redshift samples could test whether these divergent trends appear early in cosmic time.

Load-bearing premise

The specific mass threshold of 9.5 in log solar masses marks a physically meaningful transition between distinct evolutionary behaviors rather than an arbitrary cut that could be shifted without altering the observed trends.

What would settle it

Repeating the full analysis after shifting the mass boundary to 9.0 or 9.8 and finding that the differences in environmental quenching trends and D4000 ages between the new groups remain identical or disappear would show the 9.5 value is not a special divider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19426 by Chandan Watts, Gothai L, Sudhanshu Barway.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scatter plot showing the distribution of galaxies as a function of stellar mass and specific star formation rate. High-mass galaxies (log(M⋆/M⊙) ≥ 10) are shown in purple, while low-mass galaxies (log(M⋆/M⊙) < 10) are shown in blue. median redshift of z ∼ 0.03 and typical stellar masses above 109 M⊙. Morphological classifications are obtained by cross￾matching the MaNGA DR17 catalog with the MaNGA Visual M… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left) Kernel density distribution of the D4000Re index for galaxies across different stellar mass ranges and mor￾phological types, spanning log(M∗/M⊙) = 7.5–12.0, using a bin width of 0.5 M⊙. (Right) Kernel density distribution of the D4000Re index for dwarf galaxies (log(M⋆/M⊙) ≤ 9.5; solid lines), and intermediate-mass galaxies (9.5 < log(M⋆/M⊙) < 10; dotted lines) The horizontal dotted line at D4000Re … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of the 2,515 low-mass galaxies (log(M⋆/M⊙) < 10), separated by morphology: ellipticals (E; brown), lenticulars (S0s; red), early-type spirals (ETS; teal), and late-type spirals (LTS; blue). (a) Morphological composition of the low-mass sample, with E (156), S0s (403), ETS (942), and LTS (1014). (b) Distribution of local environmental density, with 977 galaxies in low-density, 1,070 in interme… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of galaxies in two stellar mass ranges. The left column shows galaxies with log(M⋆/M⊙) ≤ 9.5 (977 dwarf galaxies), while the right column shows galaxies with 9.5 < log(M⋆/M⊙) < 10.0 (1,538 intermediate-mass galaxies), separated by morphology: ellipticals (E; brown), lenticulars (S0s; red), early-type spirals (ETS; teal), and late-type spirals (LTS; blue). (a) Morphological composition of the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median D4000Re index as a function of local environmental density for different morphological types in high-mass, intermediate, and dwarf galaxies. The x-axis rep￾resents the environmental density bins corresponding to low-, intermediate-, and high-density regions. Error bars indicate uncertainties estimated from bootstrap resampling. The hor￾izontal dotted line at D4000Re = 1.5 separates younger and older… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the interplay between morphology, specific star formation rate (sSFR), and local environment using a sample of 7,408 galaxies from the SDSS-IV MaNGA survey. Our analysis spans stellar masses from dwarf to massive galaxies, enabling a unified view of how stellar mass and environment regulate galaxy evolution. Galaxies are classified by morphology (ellipticals (E), lenticulars (S0s), early-type spirals (ETS), and late-type spirals (LTS)) and local environmental density, with star formation activity traced using sSFR. Low-mass galaxies ($\log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) < 10$) are predominantly star-forming and dominated by LTS, whereas high-mass galaxies ($\log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \geq 10$) are dominated by ETS and are largely quenched. By separating dwarf ($\log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \leq 9.5$) and intermediate-mass galaxies ($9.5 < \log (M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) < 10$), we find that dwarf galaxies remain predominantly star-forming with only weak environmental dependence, whereas intermediate-mass galaxies exhibit clearer environmental trends toward quenching. Using the D4000 index as a tracer of long-term stellar population aging, we further show that dwarf E and S0s host systematically younger stellar populations than their intermediate-mass counterparts, implying reduced quenching efficiency and more gradual environmental processing in the dwarf regime. This distinction is not evident among spiral galaxies, whose stellar population properties are comparatively insensitive to the dwarf versus non-dwarf classification. Overall, these results indicate that the commonly defined low-mass galaxy population is not homogeneous and that dwarf and intermediate-mass galaxies show systematically different evolutionary trends. Treating them separately is therefore essential for interpreting galaxy evolution in the low-mass regime.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 7408 galaxies from the MaNGA survey spanning dwarf to massive regimes. It classifies galaxies by morphology (E, S0, ETS, LTS), local environmental density, and star-formation activity via sSFR, while using the D4000 index to trace stellar-population aging. The central claim is that the low-mass population (log M*/M⊙ < 10) is inhomogeneous: dwarf galaxies (≤ 9.5) remain predominantly star-forming with only weak environmental dependence and host younger stellar populations in E/S0 types than intermediate-mass galaxies (9.5–10), which show clearer environmental quenching trends. Spiral galaxies show little difference across the dwarf/intermediate split. The authors conclude that dwarf and intermediate-mass galaxies must be treated separately to interpret low-mass galaxy evolution.

Significance. If the reported distinctions are robust, the work is significant for galaxy-evolution studies because it supplies direct observational evidence that the commonly adopted low-mass regime cannot be treated as a single category. The large, uniform MaNGA sample and standard tracers (sSFR, D4000) allow a clean separation of environmental and stellar-population trends, which could refine quenching models and halo-occupation prescriptions specifically in the dwarf regime.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and sample-division description: the threshold log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 is adopted to separate dwarfs from intermediate-mass galaxies without demonstrated physical motivation (e.g., a break in the stellar-mass function, halo-mass scale, or scaling-relation inflection) or robustness tests against small shifts (9.3 or 9.7). Because the central claim of inhomogeneity rests on this specific partition, the absence of such justification or sensitivity analysis makes the distinction vulnerable to binning artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the exact environmental-density metric (e.g., nearest-neighbor or group catalog) and the precise D4000 measurement aperture to aid reproducibility.
  2. The text should clarify whether the reported environmental trends remain significant after controlling for morphology or after applying the same mass cut to the full sample rather than only the low-mass subset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive comments. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and sample-division description: the threshold log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 is adopted to separate dwarfs from intermediate-mass galaxies without demonstrated physical motivation (e.g., a break in the stellar-mass function, halo-mass scale, or scaling-relation inflection) or robustness tests against small shifts (9.3 or 9.7). Because the central claim of inhomogeneity rests on this specific partition, the absence of such justification or sensitivity analysis makes the distinction vulnerable to binning artifacts.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern that the choice of the log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 threshold lacks explicit justification in the current version of the manuscript. This threshold is selected based on the point where the environmental dependence of star formation and the differences in stellar population ages become apparent in our MaNGA sample. It aligns with common definitions in the literature for separating dwarf galaxies from more massive systems. To address this, we will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated paragraph in the introduction or methods section providing the physical motivation, drawing from the break in the stellar mass function around 10^9.5 M⊙ and previous studies on galaxy quenching. Furthermore, we have conducted sensitivity analyses by varying the threshold to 9.3 and 9.7, and the key results regarding the distinct evolutionary trends remain robust. These revisions and additional tests will be incorporated into the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in observational analysis of MaNGA data

full rationale

The paper conducts a direct statistical analysis of 7,408 galaxies from the MaNGA survey, binning by stellar mass, morphology, local density, sSFR, and D4000 index to compare trends. The division at log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 is presented as a sample split to test for distinct behaviors in dwarf versus intermediate-mass regimes, with results reported as empirical differences in environmental dependence and stellar population ages. No equations, derivations, or predictions are described that reduce by construction to fitted inputs or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the central claim. The analysis remains self-contained as an observational extraction of trends from measured quantities, with the mass threshold functioning as an exploratory partition rather than a derived or tautological element.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about observational tracers plus one key analysis choice for the mass division.

free parameters (1)
  • mass division threshold = 9.5
    The cut at log(M*/M⊙) = 9.5 is chosen to separate dwarf from intermediate-mass galaxies and drives the reported difference in evolutionary trends.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption D4000 index serves as a reliable tracer of long-term stellar population aging
    Invoked to conclude that dwarf E and S0 galaxies host younger populations than intermediate-mass counterparts.
  • domain assumption Specific star formation rate accurately classifies galaxies as star-forming or quenched
    Used throughout to trace star formation activity and quenching trends.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5872 in / 1523 out tokens · 47564 ms · 2026-05-20T04:39:38.532407+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1688

    Bait, O., Barway, S., & Wadadekar, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1688 2017

  2. [2]

    A., Acker , A., Frew , D., & et al

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x Bichang’a, B., Kaviraj, S., Lazar, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1441

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x 2006

  3. [3]

    R., & Moustakas, J

    Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 2009

  4. [4]

    A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833136 2018

  5. [5]

    A., Law , D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  6. [6]

    A., Amrutha, S., & Das, M

    Chauhan, R., Subramanian, S., Kudari, D. A., Amrutha, S., & Das, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14695, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14695

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14695 2025

  7. [7]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037 2014

  8. [8]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    work page doi:10.1086/521818 2007

  9. [9]

    S., et al

    Darvish, B., Martin, C., Gon¸ calves, T. S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a4 2018

  10. [10]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 2007

  11. [11]

    2021 , journal =

    Gu, Y., Fang, G., Yuan, Q., Lu, S., & Liu, S. 2021, ApJ, 921, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ce0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ce0 2021

  12. [12]

    R., Millman, K

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  13. [13]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    MNRAS , keywords =

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

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

  15. [15]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06637.x , eprint =

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003b, MNRAS, 341, 54, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x 2003

  16. [16]

    and Glazebrook, Karl and Kacprzak, Glenn G

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Papovich, C., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75 2017

  17. [17]

    E., et al

    Kim, K., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae488

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae488 2018

  18. [18]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  19. [19]

    Lacerda, E. A. D., S´ anchez, S. F., Mej´ ıa-Narv´ aez, A., et al. 2022, NewA, 97, 101895, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2022.101895

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2022.101895 2022

  20. [20]

    White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13000.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13000.x 2008

  21. [21]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    Li, M., Cai, Z., Bian, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf470 2023

  22. [22]

    M., et al

    Mao, Z., Kodama, T., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243733

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243733 2022

  23. [23]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/250 2009

  24. [24]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., & Lelli, F. 2017, ApJ, 851, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9790

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9790 2017

  25. [25]

    A new sample of AGNs in dwarf galaxies with spatially-resolved spectroscopy

    Mezcua, M., & Dom´ ınguez S´ anchez, H. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae292

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae292 2024

  26. [26]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2615

    Mezcua, M., & Dom´ ınguez S´ anchez, H. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2615 2025

  27. [27]

    Star Formation in AEGIS Field Galaxies since z=1.1 : The Dominance of Gradually Declining Star Formation, and the Main Sequence of Star-Forming Galaxies

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43, doi: 10.1086/517926

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/517926 2007

  28. [28]

    and Kova

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/193 2010

  29. [29]

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

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

    work page doi:10.2298/saj1489001s 2014

  30. [30]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  31. [31]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2 S´ anchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Lacerda, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b8f

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2 2016

  32. [32]

    J., & Satyapal, S

    Secrest, N. J., & Satyapal, S. 2020, ApJ, 900, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9309

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9309 2020

  33. [33]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3092

    Siudek, M., Mezcua, M., & Krywult, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3092 2023

  34. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/2

    Stierwalt, S., Besla, G., Patton, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/2 2015

  35. [35]

    2024, A&A, 681, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346536

    Subramanian, S., Mondal, C., & Kalari, V. 2024, A&A, 681, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346536 2024

  36. [36]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29 V´ azquez-Mata, J. A., Hern´ andez-Toledo, H. M.,

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac635

    Avila-Reese, V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac635

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac635 2022

  38. [38]

    A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A

    Wake, D. A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc 2017

  39. [39]

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

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03021 2021