Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The hyperactive repeater FRB 20240114A is hosted by a low-metallicity, star-forming dwarf galaxy at z = 0.1306, with a foreground galaxy cluster contributing about 180 pc cm^-3 to its dispersion measure.

desk verdict Solid host characterization with a soft cluster-DM underbelly; worth refereeing, not desk-rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05587 v3 pith:EAWKYNKB submitted 2025-02-08 astro-ph.GA

Xiang-Lei Chen , Chao-Wei Tsai , Di Li , Pei Wang , Yi Feng , Jun-Shuo Zhang , Guo-Dong Li , Yong-Kun Zhang
show 11 more authors
Lu-Lu Bao Mai Liao Lu-Dan Zhang Pei Zuo Dong-Wei Bao Chen-Hui Niu Rui Luo Wei-Wei Zhu Hu Zou Sui-Jian Xue Bing Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBhostgalaxydwarfgalaxiesstar-formingdispersionmeasureclusterstransientsources
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 uses optical spectroscopy of the host of FRB 20240114A to establish that the burst comes from a low-metallicity, star-forming dwarf galaxy at z = 0.1306. From the H-$\alpha$ emission it derives a host-galaxy dispersion measure contribution of about 200 pc $cm^{-3}$, and from catalog data it identifies a foreground galaxy cluster that contributes about 180 pc $cm^{-3}$ to the observed dispersion measure. If these numbers hold, the burst's location and environment align it with the small class of very active repeaters hosted by dwarf galaxies, and its dispersion measure is not a clean cosmic-distance probe. The paper also finds that repeating and one-off FRB hosts differ significantly in the stellar mass versus star-formation-rate plane (p = 0.0116).

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on four measured pieces. First, the emission-line fluxes (H-$\alpha$, H-$\beta$, [O III], [N II], [S II]) put the galaxy on the star-forming side of a BPT diagram and set the metallicity. Second, the extinction-corrected H-$\alpha$ surface brightness is converted to an emission measure and then to a dispersion measure (the integrated free-electron column along the line of sight, in pc $cm^{-3}$), giving about 200 pc $cm^{-3}$ for the host. Third, the foreground cluster's electron density at r500 (about 3 x $10^{-4}$ $cm^{-3}$) times a path length of about 0.58 Mpc gives about 180 pc $cm^{-3}$ of foreground dispersion measure. Fourth, a MANOVA test compares the joint distribution of stellar mass and star-formation rate between repeating and one-off FRB hosts, producing the p = 0.0116 separation.

What would settle it

Deep X-ray surface-brightness or Sunyaev-Zeldovich mapping of the foreground cluster along the FRB sightline would measure the electron column directly; if that column corresponds to a dispersion measure much smaller than ~180 pc $cm^{-3}$, the claimed foreground DM and the resulting host residual are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that FRB 20240114A, one of the most active repeating bursts known, is hosted by a dwarf galaxy of stellar mass (4.0 +/- 1.8) x $10^{8}$ solar masses with a star-formation rate of 0.06 +/- 0.01 solar masses per year and a metallicity around 12 + log10([O/H]) ~ 8.5. Optical emission-line ratios place the ionization on the star-forming side of the BPT diagram, and the extinction-corrected H-$\alpha$ surface brightness corresponds to a host-galaxy dispersion measure of roughly 200 pc $cm^{-3}$ in the source frame. The paper further argues that a foreground galaxy cluster at z = 0.0903 with mass M500 = 6.8 x $10^{13}$ solar masses lies along the line of sight and contributes about 180 pc $cm^{-3}$, leaving a host residual of about 150 pc $cm^{-3}$. Finally, a multivariate comparison of 11 repeating and 33 one-off FRB hosts yields a significant difference in their stellar mass and star-formation-rate distributions (p = 0.0116), which the paper reads as evidence for distinct progenitor environments.

Load-bearing premise

The DM-budget interpretation assumes the foreground cluster J212719.9+042225 really lies along the line of sight with the gas density profile and path length adopted; if its electron column is much smaller, the ~180 pc $cm^{-3}$ attribution and the derived host DM residual change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, FRB 20240114A becomes the nearest active repeater known to be hosted by a low-metallicity, star-forming dwarf galaxy, joining FRB 20121102A and FRB 20190520B.
  • The dispersion measure of this FRB must be budgeted among Milky Way, intergalactic medium, host galaxy, and foreground large-scale structure; the foreground cluster alone accounts for roughly a third of the extragalactic DM.
  • The H-alpha-derived host DM of about 200 pc cm^-3 is comparable to the residual after cluster subtraction, so dwarf-galaxy ionized gas can be a leading term in DM budgets of repeaters.
  • The significant MANOVA difference implies that repeating and one-off FRBs occupy statistically distinct regions of host stellar-mass versus star-formation-rate space, pointing to different formation channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if clusters or groups contribute a few hundred pc cm^-3 along random sightlines, then DM-redshift distance estimators carry an extra scatter term, and FRBs viewed through foreground structures will have systematically inflated redshift upper limits.
  • The MANOVA comparison is built from heterogeneous samples with different redshift ranges and selection effects, so the p = 0.0116 separation should be tested on a larger, redshift-matched, uniformly measured sample before being treated as a robust population dichotomy.
  • The H-alpha DM estimate assumes Milky Way-like warm ionized medium parameters (filling factor 0.1, density contrast 1, variance 1); in a clumpy dwarf ISM the true host contribution could be several times larger or smaller than the quoted 200 pc cm^-3.
  • If the candidate persistent radio source associated with this FRB is confirmed, the combination of dwarf host, extreme burst activity, and a compact radio source would strengthen the analogy with the young magnetar-like engines proposed for FRB 20121102A and FRB 20190520B.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports GTC/OSIRIS spectroscopy of the host galaxy of FRB 20240114A and derives its physical properties. The authors measure a spectroscopic redshift z=0.1306±0.0002, detect Balmer and forbidden emission lines, classify the galaxy as star-forming on the BPT diagram, fit the UV-optical SED with an irregular-galaxy template, and infer a stellar mass of (4.0±1.8)×10^8 M⊙, SFR(Hα)=0.06±0.01 M⊙ yr^-1, and a metallicity upper limit of 12+log(O/H)~8.5. They estimate an Hα-traced host DM of about 200 pc cm^-3 in the source frame, identify a foreground cluster J212719.9+042225 with an estimated DM contribution of about 180 pc cm^-3, and use a MANOVA test to claim that repeating and one-off FRB hosts differ in stellar mass versus SFR (p=0.0116). The host identification and dwarf, star-forming characterization are plausible; the DM budget and the statistical comparison require additional support.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper adds FRB 20240114A to the small set of active repeaters hosted by low-metallicity dwarf star-forming galaxies, making it the nearest such dwarf host, and it raises the possibility that foreground large-scale structure contributes measurably to DM. The work also makes a statistically framed claim about host differences between repeaters and one-offs. Strengths include the careful spectrophotometric calibration, explicit statement of adopted WIM parameters in the Hα DM estimate, use of publicly available photometry and catalogs, and a clear comparison with other FRB hosts. The main caveats are that the metallicity rests on a non-detected [N II] line and that the foreground-cluster DM is an uncalibrated estimate; both are central to the abstract's claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The metallicity and BPT position rest on [N II] λ6583, whose fitted flux is 0.96±0.96 in Table 1 and therefore is not a detection. The quoted 12+log(O/H)∼8.5 and the x-coordinate of the BPT point in Fig. 3 both use log([N II]/Hα) without propagating this 100% uncertainty; a 1σ change in [N II] moves log([N II]/Hα) by about 0.4 dex and can shift the inferred metallicity by several tenths of a dex. Please replace the metallicity value with a proper upper limit derived, for example, from the 1σ or 2σ line-flux upper limit with Monte Carlo propagation, and state explicitly how the BPT classification changes over this range. The central 'low-metallicity dwarf host' claim depends on this point.
  2. [§4.3] The cluster DM contribution DM_fore∼180 pc cm^-3 is quoted without uncertainty and is the basis for the title and the DM-budget interpretation. The cluster J212719.9+042225 is not detected in X-ray catalogs (BAX, MCXC, NORAS/REFLEX, eROSITA), the adopted ne∼0.0003 cm^-3 comes from a scaling relation at r500 rather than a direct measurement, and the path length l∼0.58 Mpc depends on the assumed cluster geometry. A factor-of-two change in ne changes DM_fore by about 90 pc cm^-3, comparable to the Hα host DM (173±9 pc cm^-3 in the observer frame); the residual host DM would then change by the same amount and could become negative. Please propagate uncertainties from the cluster mass-richness relation and the gas-density profile, or present this as an illustrative estimate and temper the title and Section 5 summary accordingly.
  3. [§4.1] The MANOVA claim in the abstract (p=0.0116; p=0.0203 after removing one-off hosts at z>0.6) is based on 11 repeaters and 33 one-off hosts. The test assumes multivariate normality and equal covariance matrices, but no diagnostics are reported, and the redshift cut does not match the redshift distributions of the two samples; FRB-host samples also have heterogeneous property derivations and selection functions. Since this is a headline result, please add a permutation or bootstrap test that does not rely on distributional assumptions, or clearly label the finding as tentative. The host-galaxy identification itself does not depend on this analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The numerical coefficient 18 pc cm^-3 reproduces the quoted 195 pc cm^-3 only if l is in parsec, while the text says l=2.4 kpc; please clarify the units or add the conversion factor.
  2. [§4.3] The remaining host DM of about 150 pc cm^-3 is compared with Table 3's source-frame value of 200 pc cm^-3; the comparison should use the observer-frame estimate of 173±9 pc cm^-3 given in §3.2.
  3. [Various] There are several typographical errors: 'Divieded' in §3.2, 'fo fiend-of-friend' in §4.3, 'Glaxsy' in the §4.1 heading, 'T able' in Tables 1 and 3, and 'FRB 202401114A' in the Table 2 header.
  4. [Figure 4] The label 'J212739.84+041945.6' differs from the galaxy name 'SDSS J212739.84+041945.8' used in the text; please make the coordinates consistent.
  5. [Table 1] [N II] λ6583 should be flagged as an upper limit or non-detection, given its 100% uncertainty.
  6. [§4.3] The sentence stating that the FRB lies within r500 and 'suggesting a significant likelihood' is not a quantified probability; please rephrase as a geometric statement or provide a quantified chance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: host DM, cluster DM, and MANOVA test are independent of the observed FRB DM and of one another.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction. The host-galaxy DM estimate in Sect. 3.2 is an independent H-alpha emission-measure tracer: Eq. (6) combines the measured H-alpha surface brightness, an adopted path length l = 2.4 kpc, and explicit warm-ionized-medium parameters (f = 0.1, zeta = 1, eps^2 = 1) to obtain DM_s_Halpha = 195 +/- 10 pc cm^-3. This quantity is not fitted to the observed FRB DM; indeed, Sect. 4.3 reports that after subtracting the Milky Way, IGM, and foreground-cluster contributions the remaining DM_host is about 150 pc cm^-3, roughly 50 pc cm^-3 lower than the H-alpha estimate, and the paper explicitly lists possible causes of this discrepancy. The foreground cluster DM in Sect. 4.3 is computed from the Wen & Han (2024) catalog values M500 = 6.8e13 M_sun and r500 = 0.67 Mpc, an electron density ne ~ 0.0003 cm^-3 taken from Fujita & Aung (2019), and a geometric path length l ~ 0.58 Mpc; no parameter is adjusted to force agreement with the observed DM, and the paper notes non-detections in X-ray cluster catalogs while presenting the estimate as a non-negligible contribution rather than a closure requirement. The MANOVA comparison in Sect. 4.1 uses independently published host-galaxy stellar masses and SFRs, with the newly measured host as one data point, and its p-value is a statistical output rather than a fitted prediction; the stated redshift-restricted check (p = 0.0203) is a robustness test, not a circular adjustment. Self-citations in the paper, such as Zhang (2018) for the DM-z relation and 'Chen et al., submitted to ApJ' for FRB 20190520B metallicity or follow-up details, are used as literature values and are not load-bearing for the paper's central construction-level claims. Concerns about the uncalibrated foreground-cluster DM or the sensitivity of the MANOVA p-value to sample selection are correctness and robustness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The DM budget and the population comparison rely on a chain of external calibrations and adopted parameters. The H-alpha-traced host DM depends on assumed gas geometry (aperture, path length, f, zeta, eps^2, T4). The foreground cluster DM depends on a catalog identification and a scaling-relation electron density rather than a direct X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurement. The stellar mass depends on Bell et al. color-M/L relations, and the MANOVA conclusion depends on untested multivariate normality and common covariance assumptions. None of these are invented entities, but each contributes systematic uncertainty to the headline numbers.

free parameters (10)
  • H-alpha aperture semi-axes a, b = a = 0.5 arcsec, b = 0.4 arcsec
    Adopted because the galaxy is unresolved in Pan-STARRS i-band; sets S(H-alpha) and hence the emission measure in Eq. (5).
  • Ionized gas path length l = 2.4 kpc
    Set to the elongated scale 2a of the galaxy; enters Eq. (6) as l^(1/2) and directly scales DMs(H-alpha).
  • Ionized gas filling factor f = 0.1
    Milky Way WIM value used in Eq. (6); Ocker et al. allow f ranging lower, which would increase the DM estimate.
  • Cloud-cloud density variation zeta = 1
    Assumed typical WIM value in Eq. (6); combined factor zeta(1+eps^2)/f is allowed to range 1-50.
  • Intra-cloud density variance eps^2 = 1
    Assumed in Eq. (6); with zeta and f it controls the effective path length correction.
  • Electron temperature T4 = 1 (10^4 K)
    Assumed for an H II region; DMs(H-alpha) scales as T4^0.45.
  • Foreground cluster electron density ne = 0.0003 cm^-3
    Taken from Fujita & Aung (2019) at r500; combined with a 0.58 Mpc path length gives DM_fore about 180 pc cm^-3.
  • Foreground cluster path length l_cl = 0.58 Mpc
    Assumed line-of-sight extent through the cluster; not directly measured.
  • FoF linking length parameters a, z* = a = 5.0, z* = 0.05
    Chosen by matching group number density 0.001-0.005 h^-1 Mpc^-3; used to identify the candidate galaxy group in Sect 4.3.
  • SED component amplitudes (E, Sbc, Im, AGN) = Not tabulated; Im dominates
    MCMC fit to seven photometric points with non-negative priors; determines the SFR(UV) lower limit and rest-frame colors used for stellar mass.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0=67.66 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.310 (Planck 2020).
    Used to compute distances, luminosities, and SFR calibrations throughout; standard but model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Macquart relation z approximately DM_IGM/855 pc cm^-3 (Zhang 2018).
    Used in Sect 3.2 to estimate the IGM DM; this is a median relation with large scatter that does not account for sightline variance.
  • standard math Case-B recombination ratio H-alpha/H-beta = 2.86 for intrinsic extinction.
    Assumed in Sect 3.1 to derive A_V=0.220; valid for typical H II region conditions but not directly measured.
  • standard math H-alpha surface brightness to emission measure conversion of Reynolds (1977).
    Used in Eq. (5) to estimate EM from S(H-alpha); assumes the H-alpha emission is optically thin and arises in a warm ionized medium.
  • domain assumption Bell et al. (2003) ugriz color-M/L relations with a Salpeter IMF.
    Used in Sect 3.3 to convert rest-frame optical colors and luminosity to Mstar about 4e8 M_sun; assumes the same IMF and M/L calibration as the reference sample.
  • domain assumption Assef et al. (2010) empirical SED templates represent the host galaxy's stellar populations.
    Used in the SED decomposition; if the true star formation history is not captured by the templates, the derived SFR(UV) and colors could be biased.
  • domain assumption Fujita & Aung (2019) electron density at r500 applies to the foreground cluster.
    Adopted in Sect 4.3 to set ne~0.0003 cm^-3 and DM_fore~180 pc cm^-3; cluster gas density is not measured along this sightline.
  • domain assumption Wen & Han (2024) catalog identification of J212719.9+042225 as a genuine galaxy cluster at z=0.0903.
    The foreground cluster's existence, redshift, and M500=6.8e13 M_sun are taken from this catalog; the paper finds no X-ray counterpart in BAX, MCXC, NORAS, REFLEX, or eROSITA.
  • domain assumption MANOVA assumptions of multivariate normality and common covariance across repeater and one-off host samples.
    Required for the p=0.0116 claim; not tested in the paper, and the samples are small and heterogeneous.
  • domain assumption The DM budget in Eq. (3) excludes a possible contribution from the FRB's local environment.
    Any DM from a supernova remnant, magnetar wind nebula, or circum-burst medium would appear in the residual and alter the host/cluster split.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EAWKYNKB

@misc{pith2026250205587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EAWKYNKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05587}
}
abstract

We report on the optical spectroscopic observations of the host galaxy of the hyperactive repeating fast radio burst, FRB 20240114A. The host galaxy is a dwarf galaxy at a redshift of $z=0.1306\pm0.0002$. With a rest-frame coverage of 4300-7900 \AA, we have detected H$\rm{\alpha}$, H$\rm{\beta}$, [O III]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007, [N II]$\lambda\lambda$6548,6583, and [S II]$\lambda$6716 emission lines. The emission line ratios suggest that the ionization in the host galaxy is dominated by star formation. The star formation rate (SFR) derived from the H$\rm{\alpha}$ emission line is $(0.06 \pm 0.01) \ \rm{M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$, and the SED fitting suggests the lower limit of the SFR(UV) is $0.09 \ \rm{M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$. The stellar mass is $(\rm 4.0 \pm 1.8) \times 10^8 \ M_{\odot}$, making the specific star formation rate $\rm log \ sSFR(H\rm \alpha) = -9.8 \pm 0.2 \ yr^{-1}$. The line ratios indicate an upper limit of a metallicity of $\rm 12+log_{10} ([O/H]) \sim 8.5$. As the nearest dwarf host galaxy with a repeating FRB, the activity of FRB 20240114A and the properties of this host galaxy closely resemble those of FRB 20121102A and FRB 20190520B. The H$\rm{\alpha}$-traced dispersion measure (DM) provided by the ionized gas of the host galaxy has a moderate contribution of $\sim 200 \rm \ pc \ cm^{-3}$, assuming a warm ionized gas. We found that the distributions of the stellar mass versus SFR are significantly different between repeating and one-off FRBs, as determined by the MANOVA test with $p=0.0116$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Legacy Survey r-band image (DR9, Dey et al. 2019) of the host galaxy of FRB 20240114A. The red circle marks the FRB location with an uncertainty of r = 0.2 ′′ . The dashed gray lines depict the slit configuration used in the spectroscopic observation. tation measure (RM) of the source varied between 325 and 360 rad m2 (O’Connor et al. 2024; Uttarkar et al. 2024; Ould-Boukattine et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2024a; Pelli… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GTC/OSIRIS+ R500R spectrum of the FRB 20240114A host galaxy at z = 0.1306. The noise, including the sky residual, is represented by the red dashed line, and the blue shaded regions represent the masked areas in the emission line fitting due to noise and telluric absorption around 7600 ˚A. The lower panels show the best fitting results of the emission lines of Hβ, [O iii]λλ4959,5007 (left) and Hα, [N ii]λλ6548,6583, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BPT classification diagram for the host galaxy of FRB 20240114A and that of other FRBs. The contours rep￾resent the SDSS DR17 galaxies with significant emission lines (> 5σ, Abdurro’uf et al. 2022). The lines indicate the demar￾cation between star-forming galaxies and composite sources (Kauffmann et al. 2003b), composite sources and LINERs (Kewley et al. 2006), and LINER and Seyfert galaxies (Cid Fernandes et al. 20… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit SED template model of the host galaxy of FRB 20240114A. The magenta points with error bars rep￾resent the extinction-corrected photometric data. The SED modeling uses the template of the irregular galaxy from Assef et al. (2010) as described in Section 3.3. r,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SFR and stellar mass of FRB host galaxies. The host galaxy of FRB 20240114A, other dwarf host galaxies, and the host galaxy of the active repeater FRB 20201124A are highlighted with larger symbols outlined in black, with their names labeled near the symbols. The unfill…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Locations of FRB 20240114A (red dot) and the identified galaxy group candidate (blue dots). The black dashed circle represents the typical scale of a galaxy cluster with a radius of 1 Mpc. The remaining gray dots represent other galaxies used in the FoF algorithm analy…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    T., et al

    Aggarwal, K., Budav´ ari, T., Deller, A. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2 2021

  3. [3]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  4. [4]

    Aller, L. H. 1984, Physics of thermal gaseous nebulae (Springer Dordrecht), doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-9639-3

    doi:10.1007/978-94-010-9639-3 1984

  5. [5]

    1979, A&A, 78, 200

    Alloin, D., Collin-Souffrin, S., Joly, M., & Vigroux, L. 1979, A&A, 78, 200

    1979

  6. [6]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  7. [7]

    2009, AN INTRODUCTION TO MULTIV ARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, 3RD ED (Wiley India Pvt

    Anderson, T. 2009, AN INTRODUCTION TO MULTIV ARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, 3RD ED (Wiley India Pvt. Limited). https://books.google.com/books?id=1iF0CgAAQBAJ

    2009

  8. [8]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Kochanek, C. S., Brodwin, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 970, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/970

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Eisenhardt, P

    Assef, R. J., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Stern, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/27 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    1981 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Tendulkar, S

    Bassa, C. G., Tendulkar, S. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    F., McIntosh, D

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

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Scott, D

    Bhandari, S., Gordon, A. C., Scott, D. R., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.16790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.16790

    2022 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A., & Gil de Paz, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    2024

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13121

    Bhusare, Y., Maan, Y., & Kumar, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13121

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 B¨ ohringer, H., Voges, W., Huchra, J

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 B¨ ohringer, H., Voges, W., Huchra, J. P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 129, 435, doi: 10.1086/313427 B¨ ohringer, H., Schuecker, P., Guzzo, L., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, 367, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034484

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    P., et al

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01478, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01478

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2005, ApJL, 619, L51, doi: 10.1086/423241

    Buat, V., Iglesias-P´ aramo, J., Seibert, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L51, doi: 10.1086/423241

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348264

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348264

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    2005

  14. [22]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x

    2017

  17. [25]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 —. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301598

    2002 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    M., Wharton, R

    Cordes, J. M., Wharton, R. S., Spitler, L. G., Chatterjee, S., & Wasserman, I. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.05890, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.05890

    2016 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    Dong, Y., Eftekhari, T., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium (Princeton University Press)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Marocco, F., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi: 10.1086/518158

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    Fong, Dong, Y., Leja, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e02

    Fujita, Y., & Aung, H. 2019, ApJ, 875, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e02

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    F., & Fruchter, A

    Graham, J. F., & Fruchter, A. S. 2017, ApJ, 834, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/170 12 Chen et al

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Tsai, C.-W., Stern, D., et al

    Griffith, R. L., Tsai, C.-W., Stern, D., et al. 2011, ApJL, 736, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L22

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Dettmar, R

    Haffner, L. M., Dettmar, R. J., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 969, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.969 Hidalgo-G´ amez, A. M. 2007, AJ, 134, 1447, doi: 10.1086/521392

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Drout, M

    Ibik, A. L., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11533. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11533

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053763

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    M., White, S

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

    2003

  36. [44]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

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

    2003

  37. [45]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    C., & Evans, N

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

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

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

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

    2006

  40. [48]

    A., & Kewley, L

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Kewley, L. J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 240, doi: 10.1086/425299

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b2d

    Kokubo, M., Mitsuda, K., Sugai, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b2d

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16452, 1

    Kumar, A., Maan, Y., & Bhusare, Y. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16452, 1

    2024

  43. [51]

    J., Connor, L., & Aggarwal, K

    Law, C. J., Connor, L., & Aggarwal, K. 2022, ApJ, 927, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4c42

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Simha, S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Khrykin, I. S., Simha, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acefb5

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace25b

    Li, G., Tsai, C.-W., Stern, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace25b

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Martin, C. L. 1997, ApJ, 491, 561, doi: 10.1086/304978

    1997 doi

  49. [57]

    H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al

    Niu, C. H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    K., Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6504 O’Connor, B., Bhardwaj, M., & Palmese, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16426, 1

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Hessels, J

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16432, 1

    2024

  52. [60]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16494, 1

    Roy, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16494, 1

    2024

  53. [61]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16434, 1

    Pelliciari, D., Geminardi, A., Bernardi, G., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16434, 1

    2024

  54. [62]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    2004

  55. [63]

    W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J

    Piffaretti, R., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J. B. 2011, A&A, 534, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, A&A, 656, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141903 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Piro, Bruni, G., Troja, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141903 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Madden, S

    Polles, F. L., Madden, S. C., Lebouteiller, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833776

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    H., & Davis, M

    Press, W. H., & Davis, M. 1982, ApJ, 259, 449, doi: 10.1086/160183

    1982 doi

  61. [69]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020a, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi

  62. [70]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi

  63. [71]

    Reynolds, R. J. 1977, ApJ, 216, 433, doi: 10.1086/155484

    1977 doi

  64. [72]

    P., et al

    Sadat, R., Blanchard, A., Kneib, J. P., et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 1097, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034029

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

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

    1955 doi

  66. [74]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    Shin, K., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    2024

  70. [78]

    P., Bhandari, S., Kirsten, F., et al

    Snelders, M. P., Bhandari, S., Kirsten, F., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16542, 1

    2024

  71. [79]

    G., Cordes, J

    Spitler, L. G., Cordes, J. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/101

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

    Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, Nature, 531, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    Tempel, E., Tago, E., & Liivam¨ agi, L. J. 2012, A&A, 540, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118687 Host Galaxy of FRB 20240114A 13

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    2014, A&A, 566, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423585

    Tempel, E., Tamm, A., Gramann, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423585

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al

    Tian, J., Rajwade, K. M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 3174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2013

    doi

  77. [85]

    L., & Gott, J

    Turner, E. L., & Gott, J. R., I. 1976, ApJS, 32, 409, doi: 10.1086/190403

    1976 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Kumar, P., Lower, M

    Uttarkar, P. A., Kumar, P., Lower, M. E., & Shannon, R. M. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16430, 1

    2024

  79. [87]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    L., & Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., & Han, J. L. 2024, ApJS, 272, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad409d

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

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

    2010 doi

  82. [90]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c4

    Yamasaki, S., & Totani, T. 2020, ApJ, 888, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c4

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    2018, ApJL, 867, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae8e3

    Zhang, B. 2018, ApJL, 867, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae8e3

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16695, 1

    Zhang, X., & Yu, W. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16695, 1

    2024

  86. [94]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247

    Zhang, X., Yu, W., Yan, Z., Xing, Y., & Zhang, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.