Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 90 references

Comparing the Near-infrared Spectral Energy Distributions from Different Stellar Population Synthesis Models with SPHEREx Observations

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four stellar population models overpredict galaxy near-infrared light by 0.1–0.3 mag.

desk verdict Genuinely new out-of-sample test: all four SPS models overpredict 2.4–5 μm flux by 0.1–0.3 mag; caveats are fixable, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18048 v1 pith:UZ6PYYFA submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.GA

Jeong Hwan Lee , Minjin Kim , Woong-Seob Jeong , Yujin Yang , Daniel C. Masters , Kyuseok Oh , Bomee Lee , Zhaoyu Huai
show 11 more authors
Yun-Ting Cheng Richard M. Feder Michael Zemcov Yongjung Kim Dohyeong Kim Jong-Hak Woo Andreas L. Faisst Howard Hui Brendan P. Crill Chi H. Nguyen Asantha Cooray
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellarpopulationsynthesisnear-infraredspectralenergydistributionsSPHERExSDSSgalaxiesTP-AGBstarsCOabsorptionfittinggalaxyevolution
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 four stellar population synthesis models by fitting the optical spectra of about 3,900 compact galaxies and comparing each model's predicted near-infrared SED against SPHEREx spectrophotometry from 0.75 to 5 μm. It finds that all four models overpredict the stellar continuum at 2.4–5 μm by 0.1–0.3 magnitudes, with the largest excess for intermediate-age (1–5 Gyr) stellar populations. The paper argues this is a systematic flaw in how the models treat NIR-bright evolved stars—TP-AGB stars and cool giants—not a calibration artifact. Among the models, E-MILES matches the observed fluxes best at 3.8–5 μm because its empirical cool-star library includes CO absorption features the other models lack.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a two-step comparison: full-spectrum fitting of SDSS optical spectra (3500–7000 Å) to determine stellar population parameters, then projecting the best-fit model SEDs into the NIR and measuring a weighted offset against SPHEREx spectrophotometry on a common grid of 102 wavelength channels. This isolates each model's NIR predictive power because the fitting never sees the NIR data. The crucial model ingredient driving the wavelength-dependent differences is the stellar spectral library: E-MILES relies on an empirical library of cool-star spectra with resolved CO bands, while the other three use a smoother theoretical library that omits these features.

What would settle it

Recompute the offsets using a wavelength-dependent SPHEREx calibration built from multiple standard sources across 2.4–5 μm instead of one z-band ratio; if the 2.6–3 μm overprediction peak disappears or shifts, the claimed stellar-physics bias would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the near-infrared continua predicted by E-MILES, BC03, CB19, and FSPS are systematically too bright at 2.4–5 μm relative to observed SPHEREx fluxes by 0.1–0.3 mag, even when the models are constrained only by optical SDSS spectra. The excess is strongest for galaxies with intermediate-age stellar populations (1–5 Gyr), linking the bias to TP-AGB and cool-star physics. E-MILES is the exception at 3.8–5 μm, where its empirical spectral library reproduces the 4.2–4.5 μm CO absorption that the other models do not include, bringing its predictions into much closer agreement with the data.

Load-bearing premise

The entire measurement rests on a single scalar calibration between SPHEREx and SDSS derived only in the z-band; if that calibration has a wavelength-dependent error, the trends at 2.4–5 μm could be partly instrumental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar masses and star-formation histories derived from NIR photometry with these models carry a systematic 10–30% flux bias, which would propagate into mass-to-light ratios and age estimates.
  • The measured offsets give concrete, wavelength-resolved targets for recalibrating TP-AGB and cool-star prescriptions in the next generation of population synthesis models.
  • For emission-line galaxies, the models underestimate the NIR SED because they exclude non-stellar dust and PAH emission; this sets a floor for how much of any observed NIR excess must be attributed to dust rather than stars.
  • The persistence of the overprediction across four independently constructed models signals that the missing physics is common—likely molecular absorption or TP-AGB lifetimes—not a single model's quirk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, which the paper does not pursue, is to apply the same optical-fit-then-NIR-check procedure to star clusters of known age and metallicity; this would separate TP-AGB effects from the degeneracies of composite stellar populations.
  • If the age trend is real, re-fitting with TP-AGB luminous fractions artificially reduced should erase most of the 2.6–3 μm excess—a testable prediction that could guide library updates.
  • The lack of correlation between the offsets and WISE color in quiescent galaxies, noted in the paper, implies the bias is stellar, but the paper does not discuss that the same data could constrain the temperature and metallicity coverage needed in future NIR spectral libraries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper uses SPHEREx QR2 spectrophotometry as an out-of-sample test of four NIR-covering stellar population synthesis models (E-MILES, BC03, CB19, FSPS). From 3,889 SDSS compact galaxies (2,726 non-ELGs, 1,163 ELGs), the authors perform pPXF full-spectrum fits to SDSS optical spectra, predict rest-frame NIR SEDs without using any SPHEREx data, and compare them to SPHEREx photometry. The central findings are that all models overpredict the 2.4–5 μm continuum of non-ELGs by ~0.1–0.3 mag, with the overprediction strongest for intermediate-age (~1–5 Gyr) populations; E-MILES shows the smallest offsets at 3.8–5 μm, attributed to its CO absorption treatment; and ELGs show the opposite (underprediction) trend from non-stellar emission.

Significance. If correct, these results constitute one of the first large-sample, externally validated tests of NIR SPS predictions, with direct implications for TP-AGB and cool-star modeling, mass-to-light estimates, and full-SED fitting. The design has real strengths: SPHEREx data are held out of the fits, the sample is large, stellar kinematics are validated against SDSS, and the Appendix C regression (R²<0.4) supports the claim that offset differences are not driven simply by the small age/metallicity differences among model fits. The WISE W1 check gives some reassurance on SPHEREx zero-points, although it is a single wavelength. The main caveat is the cross-calibration's assumed wavelength independence; if that fails, the spectral shape of the offsets could be partly instrumental.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1), Figs. 6/9/10] The SPHEREx-to-SDSS scaling factor is derived from the z-band ratio and applied as a scalar to all channels; the paper's assertion that this does not affect SED shape is untested. The WISE W1 check at 3.4 μm cannot rule out a color term that produces a slope toward 4–5 μm, exactly where the E-MILES CO advantage is claimed. Please provide a multi-wavelength cross-calibration test: e.g., compare SPHEREx synthetic photometry with WISE W2, or derive the scaling in each band using stellar calibrators, or at least show the SPHEREx/SDSS ratio as a function of wavelength for galaxies with high S/N. Absent this, the central wavelength-dependent offset curves are not yet robustly established as intrinsic to the models.
  2. [Section 3.1, aperture correction] The SDSS fiber-to-total correction is a single r-band scalar applied to both the observed spectrum and the model SED. For galaxies with radial color gradients, this can also distort the NIR spectral shape, since the correction should vary with wavelength. The compact selection mitigates but does not eliminate this. Please quantify the possible color-gradient effect, e.g., by comparing SDSS model magnitudes in g,r,i,z and checking whether the fiber-to-total ratio is color-independent.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The text says 'we adopted the magnitude unit for the weighted offset parameter,' but Eqs. (1)-(2) define a flux-weighted average. Please provide the explicit conversion from the flux ratio Δf to the magnitude offset μΔ, or revise the equations to compute the offset directly in magnitudes.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that WISE photometry is multiplied by the SPHEREx-to-SDSS z-band scaling factor, contradicting Section 3.2, where no scaling is applied to WISE data because only the W1−W3 color is used. Correct this inconsistency.
  3. [Author list] Minor typo: 'Andreas L. F aisst' should presumably be 'Andreas L. Faisst'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NIR offsets are genuine out-of-sample predictions against SPHEREx data that never entered the optical fits.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that four SPS models overpredict the 2.4–5 μm stellar continuum by 0.1–0.3 mag for non-ELGs—is an out-of-sample comparison. The pPXF fits use only SDSS optical spectra (3600–7000 Å), and the paper explicitly states that SPHEREx data were not included in the fitting procedure. The weighted offset μ_Δ in Eq. (1)–(2) is defined directly as (model−observed)/observed, so the measured offsets are not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. The SPHEREx-to-SDSS cross-calibration is a wavelength-independent scalar derived from the z band; even if that scalar were wrong, it would shift the zero-point, not manufacture the wavelength-dependent trends in Figures 6 and 9, and so the skeptic's concern is a calibration/correctness risk, not circularity. Self-citations to Lee et al. (2025) are used for pPXF hyperparameters, model-set choice, and comparisons of A_V distributions; these are methodological inheritance and auxiliary consistency checks, not load-bearing proofs that reduce the central NIR offset measurement to a prior result. No equation here equals its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-contained against an external benchmark (SPHEREx QR2 photometry plus WISE W1), so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by calibration and classification choices rather than fitted physics: the test is a clean out-of-sample comparison (SPHEREx not used in the fit), so the offset statistic depends mainly on the 10% model-flux floor, the z-band scaling scalar, the 20% exclusion cut, and the shared A_V. No new entities are introduced. The paper's own interpretation (TP-AGB, CO bands, BaSeL limitations) is inherited from the literature and Lee et al. (2025), not from new physics.

free parameters (4)
  • Model flux uncertainty floor = 10%
    Weights in Eq. 2 include an added 10% floor on model fluxes (Sect. 3.2). The claimed 0.1 mag ≈ 10% offsets sit exactly at this floor; the 0.2–0.3 mag claims are above it.
  • SPHEREx-to-SDSS z-band scaling factor = median ~0.96 (~4% fainter)
    Applied as a single wavelength-independent scalar to all SPHEREx channels (Sect. 3.2). It is derived per galaxy from z-band data; if it carries an unmodeled color term, the measured NIR offsets are contaminated.
  • SPHEREx-to-SDSS offset exclusion threshold = 20%
    Galaxies with SPHEREx-to-SDSS z-band offsets >20% are removed (Sect. 3.2), a post-hoc cut removing ~4% of the cross-matched sample; could bias the comparison if the offset correlates with intrinsic color.
  • V-band extinction A_V = E-MILES-derived values for all models
    A_V is fixed across all four SPS models to the E-MILES value (Sect. 3.1) to remove dust-law differences; a systematic bias in E-MILES A_V would be shared by all modeled SEDs.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The four SPS models (E-MILES, BC03, CB19, FSPS) with Chabrier IMF are adequate comparisons; their NIR extensions are taken as given
    The paper tests these models, so it must assume their internal construction (isochrones, IMF, spectral libraries) is the intended comparison target (Sect. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Non-ELGs have negligible non-stellar (dust/PAH) emission at 2.4–5 μm
    The clean stellar comparison treats non-ELG NIR flux as purely stellar; supported by low median W1−W3 = 1.8 (Sect. 4.1.2) but not directly verified at each wavelength.
  • domain assumption The r-band model/fiber flux ratio corrects the SDSS aperture at all wavelengths
    Aperture correction multiplies SDSS spectra and model SEDs by a single r-band factor (Sect. 3.2), assuming wavelength-independent aperture losses for compact galaxies.
  • domain assumption Calzetti dust law with R_V = 4.05 applies to all sample galaxies
    Chosen as the pPXF default to minimize dust-law-induced model differences (Sect. 3.1); a wrong dust law would propagate mainly into the optical fit and hence the NIR extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Optical-only pPXF fits (3600–7000 Å) determine stellar populations precisely enough that NIR prediction errors reflect model NIR physics
    The whole method extrapolates the optical fit to the NIR. Appendix C shows age/metallicity differences explain <40% of offset variance (R² < 0.4), supporting but not proving the intrinsic-model interpretation.
  • domain assumption SPHEREx QR2 photometric calibration is accurate at the ~0.05–0.1 mag level in Bands 4–6
    Cross-checks vs. WISE W1 (~3.5%) and age-correlated offsets argue calibration is sound (Sect. 5.2), but the 0.1-mag claims approach this assumed calibration floor, which is not propagated quantitatively.
  • standard math Standard statistics: weighted mean (Eq. 2) and linear regression (Appendix C) are unbiased estimators for the SED offset
    No unusual mathematics; only standard weighted averaging and least-squares regression are used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing the Near-infrared Spectral Energy Distributions from Different Stellar Population Synthesis Models with SPHEREx Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZ6PYYFA

@misc{pith2026260718048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing the Near-infrared Spectral Energy Distributions from Different Stellar Population Synthesis Models with SPHEREx Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZ6PYYFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18048}
}
abstract

While stellar population synthesis (SPS) models have been widely used for spectral analysis in optical wavelengths, their characteristics remain uncertain in the near-infrared (NIR) due to a relative lack of observed NIR spectra. The spectrophotometric data from SPHEREx are well-suited for investigating the performance of SPS models in the NIR, thanks to its wide wavelength coverage over $0.7-5.0~{\rm \mu m}$. In this work, we compare the observed SPHEREx data of SDSS compact galaxies, including 2,726 non-emission-line galaxies and 1,163 emission-line galaxies, to the NIR SEDs predicted from the full spectrum fitting of SDSS optical spectra. We use four different SPS models that extend into the NIR: E-MILES, Bruzual \& Charlot (BC03), Charlot \& Bruzual (CB19), and FSPS. We find that all four models tend to overpredict the stellar continuum at $2.4-5~{\rm \mu m}$ by $0.1-0.3~{\rm mag}$. This trend is particularly prominent for intermediate-age stellar populations ($\sim1-5~{\rm Gyr}$), suggesting a systematic bias in the NIR SED predictions of current SPS models. For stellar populations older than $5~{\rm Gyr}$, E-MILES shows relatively smaller offsets at $3.8-5~{\rm \mu m}$ compared to other models. Meanwhile, for emission-line galaxies, the SPS models underestimate the SED by up to $\sim0.5~{\rm mag}$ at longer wavelengths due to the contribution of non-stellar emission. Overall, these results highlight the necessity of refining the NIR stellar spectral features in SPS models, such as emissions from thermally pulsating asymptotic giant branch stars or molecular absorptions from cool stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of stellar mass and redshift of the final galaxy sample used in our analysis. In the main panel, the scatter plot presents the two-dimensional distribution of the total sample galaxies in the stellar mass–redshift plane. The side panels show the corresponding histograms of red￾shift (bottom) and stellar mass (right) for the two subsam￾ples of non-ELGs (red) and ELGs (blue). tio (snMedian r > 20), spectr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons of stellar kinematics of our sample galaxies, including radial velocity (left) and velocity dispersion (right), derived from pPXF in this work and values obtained from SDSS DR18. Both panels show the SDSS measurements on the x-axis and the difference between the pPXF-derived kinematics and SDSS values on the y-axis. The median values (black horizontal dashed lines) and standard deviations of the differen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example SEDs with observational data and modeled SEDs of two representative galaxies: a non-ELG (SDSS J132052.6+030122; top two panels) and an ELG (SDSS J140950.7−000242; bottom two panels). Each row displays the best-fit results using two different SPS model sets, E-MILES (left) and BC03 (right). In each panel, orange and blue solid lines represent the observed SDSS spectra and the best-fit pPXF templates, respecti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of stellar population properties derived from pPXF for different SPS models using SDSS spectra. Each column represents the results from the four different SPS models: E-MILES, BC03, CB19, and FSPS (left to right). In the top and middle rows, the luminosit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms representing the WISE color (W1 − W3) distributions of non-ELGs (red) and ELGs (blue). of SPS models and are not likely to introduce significant degeneracies in the SED comparison. 4.1.2. WISE W1 − W3 Colors In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Offset distributions for non-ELGs and ELGs as a function of WISE W1 − W3 color. From top to bottom, each row represents the results based on E-MILES, BC03, CB19, and FSPS, respectively. For each model, the columns display the relations for rest-frame wavelength bins: λ…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Offset distributions for non-ELGs as a function of stellar age. From top to bottom, each row represents the results based on E-MILES, BC03, CB19, and FSPS, respectively. For each model, the columns display the relations for SPHEREx bands in the rest frame: λrest = 0.75…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparisons of stacked NIR SEDs from SPS models and SPHEREx for intermediate-age stellar populations (log Age (yr) < 9.5). The figure is divided into two main panels: the top panel for metal-poor galaxies and the bottom for metal-rich galaxies. The metallicity bins ar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Crill, B

    Akeson, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Crill, B. P., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2511.15823. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.15823

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15823 2025

  2. [2]

    P., Faisst, A., et al.\ 2026, SPHEREx Explanatory Supplement, Version 1.4, https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPHEREx/docs/SPHEREx_Expsupp_QR.pdf

    Akeson, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Faisst, A., et al.\ 2026, SPHEREx Explanatory Supplement, Version 1.4, https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPHEREx/docs/SPHEREx_Expsupp_QR.pdf

    2026

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B.\ 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 1968, 2765. doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez, M., et al.\ 2023, , 267, 2, 44

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez, M., et al.\ 2023, , 267, 2, 44. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  5. [5]

    G.\ 2002, , 395, 915

    Aringer, B., Kerschbaum, F., & J \"o rgensen, U. G.\ 2002, , 395, 915. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021313 2002

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911703

    Aringer, B., Girardi, L., Nowotny, W., et al.\ 2009, , 503, 3, 913. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911703

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911703 2009

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A33. doi: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. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim, P

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

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Barbary, K. (2016). extinction v0.3.0. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.804967

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556999

    Bae, J., Lee, B., Im, M., et al.\ 2026, , 706, A347. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556999

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Kuntschner, H., et al.\ 2018, , 473, 4, 4698

    Baldwin, C., McDermid, R. M., Kuntschner, H., et al.\ 2018, , 473, 4, 4698. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2502

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    & Robotham, A

    Bellstedt, S. & Robotham, A. S. G.\ 2025, , 540, 3, 2703. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf889

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al.\ 2026, , 999, 1, 139. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

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

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    C., & Kothari, H.\ 2026, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 10, 4, 94

    Brooks, H., Cushing, M. C., & Kothari, H.\ 2026, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 10, 4, 94. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae6257

    2026 doi

  9. [17]

    & Charlot, S.\ 2003, , 344, 4, 1000

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S.\ 2003, , 344, 4, 1000. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  10. [18]

    C., et al.\ 2000, , 533, 2, 682

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al.\ 2000, , 533, 2, 682. doi:10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    Cappellari, M.\ 2023, , 526, 3, 3273. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S.\ 1989, , 345, 245. doi:10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G.\ 2003, , 115, 809, 763. doi:10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  14. [24]

    E., & White, M.\ 2009, , 699, 1, 486

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

    2009 doi

  15. [25]

    & Gunn, J

    Conroy, C. & Gunn, J. E.\ 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1010.043

    2010

  16. [26]

    & Gunn, J

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

    2010 doi

  17. [27]

    & van Dokkum, P.\ 2012, , 747, 1, 69

    Conroy, C. & van Dokkum, P.\ 2012, , 747, 1, 69. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/69

    2012 doi

  18. [28]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C.\ 2013, , 51, 1, 393. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    G., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 2, 139

    Conroy, C., Villaume, A., van Dokkum, P. G., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 2, 139. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab49

    2018 doi

  20. [30]

    P., Bach, Y

    Crill, B. P., Bach, Y. P., Bryan, S. A., et al.\ 2025, , 281, 1, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae04cc

    2025 doi

  21. [31]

    C., Rayner, J

    Cushing, M. C., Rayner, J. T., & Vacca, W. D.\ 2005, , 623, 2, 1115. doi:10.1086/428040

    2005 doi

  22. [32]

    Cutri, R. M. & et al.\ 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2311. II/311

    2012

  23. [33]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al.\ 2012, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products, 1

    2012

  24. [34]

    doi:10.5303/JKAS.2024.57.1.45

    Dachan, K., Song, H., Kim, Y., et al.\ 2024, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 57, 45. doi:10.5303/JKAS.2024.57.1.45

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    B., Bosman, S

    Davies, F. B., Bosman, S. E. I., Ganguly, A., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2603.10135. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.10135

    2026 doi

  26. [36]

    M., Iglesias-P \'a ramo, J., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A71

    Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J. M., Iglesias-P \'a ramo, J., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A71. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629044

    2017 doi

  27. [37]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al.\ 2017, , 34, e058. doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  28. [38]

    M., Masters, D

    Feder, R. M., Masters, D. C., Lee, B., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 1, 68. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad596d

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    & Rocca-Volmerange, B.\ 1997, , 326, 950

    Fioc, M. & Rocca-Volmerange, B.\ 1997, , 326, 950. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707017

    1997 doi arXiv

  30. [40]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz418

    Ge, J., Mao, S., Lu, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 485, 2, 1675. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz418

    2019 doi

  31. [41]

    M.\ 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 26, 695

    Green, G. M.\ 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 26, 695. doi:10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig, F.\ 2005, , 43, 1, 435. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    2005 arXiv

  34. [44]

    & Olofsson, H.\ 2018, , 26, 1, 1

    H \"o fner, S. & Olofsson, H.\ 2018, , 26, 1, 1. doi:10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al.\ 2026, , 1000, 1, 56

    Huai, Z., Bock, J. J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al.\ 2026, , 1000, 1, 56. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae472b

    2026 doi

  36. [46]

    J., Condon, S., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2602.09139

    Hui, H., Bock, J. J., Condon, S., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2602.09139. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.09139

    2026 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter, J. D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  38. [48]

    Im, M.\ 2024, 45th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 45, 1713

    2024

  39. [49]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al.\ 2019, , 873, 2, 111. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    H., Masci, F., Tsai, C

    Jarrett, T. H., Masci, F., Tsai, C. W., et al.\ 2013, , 145, 1, 6. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/6

    2013 doi

  41. [51]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Taylor, E. N., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 2, 95. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb68f

    2023 doi

  42. [52]

    K., Melchior, P., Spergel, D

    Jespersen, C. K., Melchior, P., Spergel, D. N., et al.\ 2026, , 1002, 2, 132. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5c9a

    2026 doi

  43. [53]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C.\ 2014, , 31, e030. doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    2014 doi

  44. [54]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/1/L64

    Kriek, M., Labb \'e , I., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2010, , 722, 1, L64. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/1/L64

    2010 doi

  45. [55]

    G., & Lim, S.\ 2013, , 777, 2, 82

    Ko, Y., Lee, M. G., & Lim, S.\ 2013, , 777, 2, 82. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/82

    2013 doi

  46. [56]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12908.x

    Koleva, M., Prugniel, P., Ocvirk, P., et al.\ 2008, , 385, 4, 1998. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12908.x

    2008

  47. [57]

    H., Kim, M., Kim, T., et al.\ 2025, , 169, 3, 185

    Lee, J. H., Kim, M., Kim, T., et al.\ 2025, , 169, 3, 185. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb285

    2025 doi

  48. [58]

    doi:10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.1.43

    Lim, H., Shim, H., Im, M., et al.\ 2025, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 58, 43. doi:10.5303/JKAS.2025.58.1.43

    2025 doi

  49. [59]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a9

    Lonoce, I., Feldmeier-Krause, A., Masegian, A., et al.\ 2025, , 990, 2, 133. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf3a9

    2025 doi

  50. [60]

    Mancone, C. L. & Gonzalez, A. H.\ 2012, , 124, 916, 606. doi:10.1086/666502

    2012 doi

  51. [61]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01947.x

    Maraston, C.\ 1998, , 300, 3, 872. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01947.x

    1998

  52. [62]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    Maraston, C.\ 2005, , 362, 3, 799. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    2005

  53. [63]

    doi:10.1086/508143

    Maraston, C., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., et al.\ 2006, , 652, 1, 85. doi:10.1086/508143

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    & Str \"o mb \"a ck, G.\ 2011, , 418, 4, 2785

    Maraston, C. & Str \"o mb \"a ck, G.\ 2011, , 418, 4, 2785. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19738.x

    2011

  55. [65]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1489

    Maraston, C., Hill, L., Thomas, D., et al.\ 2020, , 496, 3, 2962. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1489

    2020 doi

  56. [66]

    M., Garc \' a-Benito, R., et al.\ 2022, , 661, A99

    Mart \' nez-Solaeche, G., Gonz \'a lez Delgado, R. M., Garc \' a-Benito, R., et al.\ 2022, , 661, A99. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142812

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

    Moresco, M., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., et al.\ 2020, , 898, 1, 82. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

    2020 doi

  58. [68]

    No \"e l, N. E. D., Greggio, L., Renzini, A., et al.\ 2013, , 772, 1, 58. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/58

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x

    Pacifici, C., Charlot, S., Blaizot, J., et al.\ 2012, , 421, 3, 2002. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x

    2012

  60. [70]

    J.\ 1998, , 110, 749, 863

    Pickles, A. J.\ 1998, , 110, 749, 863. doi:10.1086/316197

    1998 doi

  61. [71]

    doi:10.1086/422498

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., et al.\ 2004, , 612, 1, 168. doi:10.1086/422498

    2004 doi

  62. [72]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2616

    Plat, A., Charlot, S., Bruzual, G., et al.\ 2019, , 490, 978. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2616

    2019 doi

  63. [73]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al.\ 2003, , 115, 805, 362. doi:10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  64. [74]

    T., Cushing, M

    Rayner, J. T., Cushing, M. C., & Vacca, W. D.\ 2009, , 185, 2, 289. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/289

    2009 doi

  65. [75]

    F., et al.\ 2015, , 449, 3, 2853

    R \"o ck, B., Vazdekis, A., Peletier, R. F., et al.\ 2015, , 449, 3, 2853. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv503

    2015 doi

  66. [76]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527570

    R \"o ck, B., Vazdekis, A., Ricciardelli, E., et al.\ 2016, , 589, A73. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527570

    2016 doi

  67. [77]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2607.00543

    Rustamkulov, Z., Kirkpatrick, J., Akeson, R., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2607.00543. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2607.00543

    2026 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    E.\ 1955, , 121, 161

    Salpeter, E. E.\ 1955, , 121, 161. doi:10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  69. [79]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P.\ 2011, , 737, 103. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  70. [80]

    R., Capak, P., Masters, D., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1606.06374

    Stickley, N. R., Capak, P., Masters, D., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1606.06374. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1606.06374

    2016 doi arXiv

  71. [81]

    Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., et al.\ 1997, , 320, L1

    1997

  72. [82]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2231

    Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., et al.\ 2016, , 463, 4, 3409. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2231

    2016 doi

  73. [83]

    V \'a zquez, G. A. & Leitherer, C.\ 2005, , 621, 2, 695. doi:10.1086/427866

    2005 doi

  74. [84]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa72ed

    Villaume, A., Conroy, C., Johnson, B., et al.\ 2017, , 230, 2, 23. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa72ed

    2017 doi

  75. [85]

    E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

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

    2020 doi

  76. [86]

    doi:10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    Walcher, J., Groves, B., Budav \'a ri, T., et al.\ 2011, , 331, 1, 1. doi:10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    2011 doi

  77. [87]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011493

    Westera, P., Lejeune, T., Buser, R., et al.\ 2002, , 381, 524. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011493

    2002 doi

  78. [88]

    M., Maraston, C., Goddard, D., et al.\ 2017, , 472, 4, 4297

    Wilkinson, D. M., Maraston, C., Goddard, D., et al.\ 2017, , 472, 4, 4297. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2215

    2017 doi

  79. [89]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al.\ 2010, , 140, 6, 1868. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  80. [90]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3ebc

    Yan, R., Chen, Y., Lazarz, D., et al.\ 2019, , 883, 2, 175. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3ebc

    2019 doi

  81. [91]

    L., Crill, B

    Zhang, E., Faisst, A. L., Crill, B. P., et al.\ 2025, , 992, 1, 3. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfd5a

    2025 doi

  82. [92]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts126

    Zibetti, S., Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., et al.\ 2013, , 428, 2, 1479. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts126

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.