Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electron-temperature scaling relations hold in metal-poor starburst gas, including diffuse outflow gas.

desk verdict A careful resolved test of Te-Te relations in metal-poor starbursts and diffuse gas that mostly confirms the standard relations, with one exception and a classification caveat that should be addressed before the abstract's null claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01282 v1 pith:SV4QZP7Z submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.GA

Magdalena J. Hamel-Bravo , Deanne B. Fisher , Danielle A. Berg , Alex J. Cameron , John Chisholm , Glenn G. Kacprzak , Barbara Mazzilli Ciraulo , Anna F. McLeod
show 1 more author
Rodrigo Herrera-Camus
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords electrontemperatureTe-Terelationsaurorallinesstarburstgalaxiesdiffusegasextraplanarmetallicitydirectmethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether the empirical relations between electron temperatures measured from different auroral lines—relations routinely used to turn a single auroral detection into a full metallicity—remain valid in environments far from the bright HII regions where they were calibrated. The authors use VLT/X-Shooter spectra of four nearby, low-metallicity starburst galaxies, measuring five auroral-line temperatures in both compact point-like sources and diffuse, extraplanar gas. Their central result is that the resulting temperature-temperature (Te–Te) relations do not deviate significantly from those established for HII regions in local spiral galaxies, even for the most metal-poor and highly ionized target and for gas outside the stellar disk. If correct, this means auroral-line-based 'direct method' metallicities stay trustworthy when applied to high-redshift analogues and to outflowing gas, where often only one auroral line can be detected.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Te–Te relation: a linear scaling between electron temperatures measured from different ions, each tracing a different ionization zone (low, intermediate, high) in the nebular gas. The paper constructs these relations from five auroral-line ratios per spatial element, then compares them with the same relations built from CHAOS HII regions. The comparison is made quantitative by binning the data in uniform 2000 K steps, fitting to CHAOS plus point-like sources, and computing mean orthogonal residuals for the diffuse-gas sample.

What would settle it

A deep, high-spatial-resolution (adaptive-optics IFU) observation of extraplanar gas in one of these galaxies, with HII regions unambiguously masked, would settle it: if the gas's Te([O III])–Te([S III]) point lies on the local-spiral relation within uncertainties, the universal-validity claim is supported; if it remains offset by more than three times the measurement uncertainty (as the current diffuse sample already shows for that pair), the universality fails for that relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that Te–Te relations are environment-independent across a parameter space that includes resolved spatial elements of 10–200 pc, metallicities 12+log(O/H) = 7.25–8.33, and both point-like sources and diffuse extraplanar gas. Electron temperatures are derived from five auroral lines ([N II] λ5755, [O II] λλ7319,30, [S II] λλ4069,76, [S III] λ6312, [O III] λ4363) for each 1-inch spatial element along long-slit observations of four starburst galaxies. Comparing these against the CHAOS sample of spiral HII regions, the mean residual of the diffuse-gas measurements relative to the HII-region Te–Te relations lies within three times the measurement uncertainty for almost all re

Load-bearing premise

The split between 'point-like sources' and 'diffuse gas' relies on a 20% flux-contribution threshold and, for IC 2828, on treating all spectral elements as diffuse even though some may be dominated by HII regions; if the diffuse sample is actually contaminated by HII-region light, the claimed universality for true extraplanar gas is weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Auroral-line direct metallicities for high-redshift galaxies can continue to rely on local Te–Te calibrations even in metal-poor, highly ionized systems like SBS 0335-052E.
  • Single-[O III]-line metallicity measurements in diffuse extraplanar gas and outflows are valid, supporting the interpretation of existing and future outflow metallicity studies.
  • The Te–Te relations appear scale-invariant from ~17 pc to ~230 pc, meaning integrated spectra of high-redshift galaxies should not suffer strong biases from temperature-structure variations at these scales.
  • The one flagged exception—the [O III]–[S III] relation in diffuse gas—requires more data before it is used for metallicity work in such environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the apparent universality of Te–Te relations implies that photoionization models predicting temperature structures could be directly cross-checked against observed diffuse-gas temperatures in regimes where those models are currently unconstrained.
  • The 4.3-sigma residual in the [O III]–[S III] diffuse-gas relation may be a real physical signature—e.g., density inhomogeneities or a harder radiation field—that a dedicated deep, adaptive-optics IFU observation of a single well-resolved galaxy could isolate.
  • If the relations are truly universal, then previous outflow metallicity measurements derived from a single auroral line are limited chiefly by flux measurement accuracy, not by the temperature-scaling step—an implicit assumption these authors make explicit.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/X-Shooter spectroscopy of four nearby, low-metallicity starburst galaxies (NGC 5253, NGC 0625, SBS 0335-052E, IC 2828), resolving 11 spatial elements per slit and measuring up to five auroral electron temperatures: Te([N II]), Te([O II]), Te([S II]), Te([S III]), and Te([O III]). It classifies spatial elements as point-like sources or diffuse gas using HST H-alpha images and a 20% flux-contribution threshold, then compares the resulting Te-Te relations with CHAOS H II regions in local spirals. The central claim is that Te-Te relations do not significantly deviate in low-metallicity starburst galaxies, including in diffuse/extraplanar gas, and that auroral-line metallicity diagnostics therefore remain valid in high-redshift galaxies and outflows. A binned residual analysis (Appendix B) is used to quantify offsets between diffuse gas and the H II region calibration.

Significance. If fully supported, this is a valuable empirical result: it would validate the use of single-auroral-line metallicities in the extreme ISM conditions of low-metallicity starbursts and in diffuse extraplanar gas, with direct implications for high-redshift JWST studies and outflow metallicity measurements. The paper is careful in several respects: it uses the same atomic data as CHAOS, propagates Monte Carlo uncertainties, and constructs the defining fit in Appendix B from CHAOS plus point-like sources only, avoiding the most obvious circularity. The resolved 10-200 pc sampling and the inclusion of multiple auroral diagnostics are strengths. However, the central null claim is not as clean as the abstract states: the paper's own residual analysis finds a 4.3-sigma offset for the Te([O III])-Te([S III]) relation in diffuse gas, and the statistical criterion used to declare 'no significant difference' is not a proper significance test. The classification of diffuse gas also contains admitted H II region contamination for IC 2828. These issues bear directly on the headline conclusion and require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5 and Fig. B2(d)] The abstract states 'We do not find significant differences in the diffuse, extraplanar gas,' but the paper's own residual analysis in Appendix B reports for the Te([O III])-Te([S III]) relation a diffuse-gas mean residual of <r> = -0.13 × 10^4 K against a mean uncertainty σ_Te = 0.03 × 10^4 K, i.e. 4.3 times the quoted uncertainty. This is acknowledged in §4.5 as 'the only exception,' yet the abstract and §5.2 present the diffuse-gas null result without that caveat. Since Te([O III])-Te([S III]) is the relation bridging the high- and intermediate-ionization zones, it is not a peripheral diagnostic. The abstract and conclusions must be qualified, and the physical origin of this offset (e.g., ionization, density, or contamination) should be discussed as a possible breakdown of the no-deviation claim.
  2. [§4.5 and Appendix B] The significance criterion used throughout — comparing the mean residual <r> to the mean measurement uncertainty σ_Te and accepting |<r>| ≤ 3σ_Te as 'not significantly different' — is not a statistically valid test for an offset. For a sample of N independent measurements, the standard error of the mean residual is approximately σ_Te/√N. The diffuse samples in the well-populated relations have N ≈ 30; for example, in Fig. B1(e) D: <r>=0.04 and D: σ_Te=0.05, which would correspond to a ~4σ offset, not a null result. The correct procedure is to compare the mean residual to its standard error (or to perform a bootstrap/chi-square test) and to report p-values. As written, the conclusion 'no significant differences' is under-supported for most relations, not just the [O III]-[S III] case. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  3. [§4.2] The diffuse-gas classification is load-bearing and is explicitly contaminated for IC 2828: the paper states that all spatial elements of IC 2828 are treated as diffuse gas 'because no HST H-alpha image is available' and that this 'may have some contamination from spectra dominated by H II regions.' Since IC 2828 is one of only four galaxies and contributes a substantial number of diffuse elements, the diffuse sample may partly be testing H II region-like spectra rather than true extraplanar gas. In addition, the 20% H-alpha flux threshold does not guarantee that the auroral lines are dominated by diffuse gas: a compact, hotter H II region that contributes only 20% of H-alpha can contribute a much larger fraction of the exponentially temperature-sensitive auroral flux (e.g., [O III] λ4363, [S III] λ6312). The authors should re-run the key comparisons excluding IC 2828, and/or present a se
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] Typo: '[Oiii] λ4636' should be '[Oiii] λ4363' in the saturation discussion.
  2. [§2.1] Typo: 'NGC 5353' should be 'NGC 5253'. The galaxy name is also inconsistent: 'NGC 625' and 'NGC 0625' are used in different places; please unify.
  3. [§2.1 and §2.2] Cross-references to tables appear incorrect: the text says 'Table 2 summarizes the key properties' and 'listed in Table 2.2' for exposure times; the tables are numbered Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
  4. [Table 3 and Figure 4/5 captions] For relations involving [N II], the tables show no RMS values for point-source/diffuse samples because of small N; please state explicitly in the caption or text that these entries are empty because fewer than two measurements were available, to avoid implying omissions.
  5. [§4.3] The sentence 'For [N II], [S II], and [O II], we expect the Te–Te relations to follow a 1:1 trend due to their similar ionization potentials' is slightly at odds with the paper's own statement that Te([N II]) is systematically lower; a sentence noting the known offsets would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical comparison to external CHAOS benchmark with an out-of-sample residual test in Appendix B.

full rationale

This paper is an observational comparison, not a derivation, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. Electron temperatures are measured from five auroral-to-nebular line ratios via PyNeb (§4.1), and the resulting Te–Te relations are compared against the CHAOS H ii region sample (§2.3). The comparison is not circular: CHAOS is an external, published dataset used as a benchmark, and although a coauthor is involved in both, the CHAOS measurements are independent of the new X-Shooter data and are not fitted values from this paper. The central null claim about diffuse gas is supported by a proper residual test: §4.5 and Appendix B bin only CHAOS plus point-source data, fit the relation to those bins, and then compute diffuse-gas residuals, so the diffuse conclusion does not reduce to a fit that includes the diffuse points. The self-citations (Hamel-Bravo et al. 2024; Berg et al. 2015/2020) are contextual or benchmark references, not load-bearing arguments, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those papers. The remaining weaknesses are empirical-validity issues rather than circularity: §4.2 explicitly acknowledges that for IC 2828 'we consider all spatial elements of IC 2828 as diffuse gas. This implies that our diffuse gas sample may have some contamination from spectra dominated by H ii regions,' and §4.5/Figure B2(d) reports one relation, Te([O iii])−Te([S iii]), where the diffuse-gas mean residual is 4.3σ_Te, which tempers the abstract's unqualified 'do not find significant differences' claim. These concerns affect the strength and interpretation of the empirical result, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. The free parameters are the fitted slopes and intercepts of the empirical Te-Te relations, which are the objects under test, plus hand-chosen analysis thresholds. The key assumptions are standard domain assumptions about atomic data, ionization structure, and the relevance of the CHAOS comparison sample. The most fragile choices are the point-source classification threshold and the treatment of IC 2828 as all-diffuse, both of which directly shape the central null result.

free parameters (12)
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O II])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.17 ± 0.04, 0.64 ± 0.04
    Linear fit to combined CHAOS + new data (Table 3), used to define the empirical Te-Te relation.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S II])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.48 ± 0.04, 0.40 ± 0.04
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S II])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.73 ± 0.05, 0.26 ± 0.07
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.54 ± 0.02, 0.40 ± 0.02
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([S II]) fit = 0.88 ± 0.08, 0.11 ± 0.10
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.55 ± 0.03, 0.47 ± 0.03
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.61 ± 0.08, 0.31 ± 0.08
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.64 ± 0.06, 0.40 ± 0.06
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([S II]) fit = 0.91 ± 0.15, 0.15 ± 0.17
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([S III]) fit = 1.28 ± 0.07, -0.24 ± 0.08
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Point-source classification threshold (20% H-alpha flux contribution) = 20%
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 4.2 to classify spatial elements as point-source dominated; changing it changes the diffuse sample composition.
  • Bin width for binned residual fits = 2000 K
    Chosen bin width in Appendix B for the residual analysis; test with median gave unchanged results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Adopted atomic data (collision strengths and transition probabilities) are correct for computing Te with PyNeb.
    Used in Section 4.1; the same data as CHAOS are adopted, so errors would cancel in comparisons but could bias absolute Te values.
  • domain assumption A three-zone ionization structure (low, intermediate, high) is an adequate description of the gas.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 to group ions; deviations from this structure in diffuse gas are precisely what the paper tests, but the grouping guides interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial elements with >20% of H-alpha flux from a point-like source are dominated by H II regions and should follow CHAOS-like Te-Te relations.
    Stated in Section 4.2 and used in Section 4.5 to build the reference relation; if this assumption fails, the reference relation itself is biased.
  • domain assumption The CHAOS sample of spiral H II regions represents the benchmark Te-Te relations for H II regions.
    Used throughout as the comparison sample; CHAOS galaxies are more massive and metal-rich, so the comparison assumes these relations are the relevant local baseline.
  • domain assumption Diffuse gas with no significant continuum and vertical orientation is extraplanar/outflowing gas.
    Stated in Section 2.1: 'the lack of significant continuum emission and the vertical orientation of the structures support their interpretation as extraplanar gas'; if the gas is actually in the disk, the outflow claim is weakened.
  • domain assumption The Balmer decrement reddening correction using Te=10^4 K, ne=100 cm^-3 and the LMC extinction curve is adequate.
    Used in Section 3; incorrect reddening would differentially bias Te from lines with widely spaced wavelengths, especially [O II].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SV4QZP7Z

@misc{pith2026250901282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SV4QZP7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01282}
}
abstract

In this work, we test the validity of $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in resolved (10-200~pc) measurements of four nearby, low-metallicity (7.25 $\leq$ 12+log(O/H) $\leq$ 8.33), low-mass (10$^{6.78}$ $\leq$ M$_*$/M$_\odot$ $\leq$ 10$^{8.7}$), starburst (10$^{-4.5}$ $\leq$ sSFR $\leq$ 10$^{-0.3}$) galaxies. We obtain VLT/X-Shooter spectra of NGC~5253, NGC~0625, SBS~0335-052E and IC~2828, targeting regions within these galaxies with bright point-like sources and diffuse gas. Our observations are designed to extend from the galaxy midplane into extraplanar gas likely belonging to galactic winds. We measure electron temperatures from five different auroral lines: [NII]~$\lambda$5755, [OII]~$\lambda\lambda$7319,30, [SII]~$\lambda\lambda$4069,76, [SIII]~$\lambda$6312, and [OIII]~$\lambda$4363. We compare the resulting $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations with previous studies of HII regions in nearby spiral galaxies. Our results show that $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in low-metallicity starburst galaxies do not significantly deviate from $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in HII regions of local spiral galaxies. We do not find significant differences in the diffuse, extraplanar gas. These results suggest that auroral lines provide a reliable metallicity diagnostic not only for high-redshift galaxies but also for the extended diffuse gas in extreme environments like outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Continuum subrtacted H𝛼 images of our four targets showing the position of the X-Shooter slits and the identified point-like sources of ionized gas. For NGC 5253 and NGC 0625 we use the continuum corrected HST/WFC2 F656N, for SBS 0335-052 we use HST/ACS F656N. For IC 2828 we continuum subtract the VLT/MUSE cube around the H𝛼 emission line, and then sum the remaining flux. Blue contours show the position of the minor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Auroral emission lines for two different spatial elements in NGC 5253. The left panel shows an H𝛼 map of NGC 5253 with the X-Shooter spatial elements highlighted: purple, located closer to the H𝛼 flux peak and green, located further out in the diffuse extraplanar gas. Right panels show zoom-ins around the 5 auroral lines used in this work: [S ii] 𝜆𝜆4068,76, [O iii] 𝜆4363, [N ii] 𝜆5755, [S iii] 𝜆6312, and [O ii] 𝜆𝜆73… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BPT diagram from the [O iii] 𝜆5007 / H𝛽 and the [N ii] 𝜆6583 / H𝛼 ratio. Solid and dashed black lines show theoretical values from Kewley et al. (2001) and Kauffmann et al. (2003) respectively, below which emission line ratios are consistent with photoionization by stars. Pink symbols show measurements for our data that are classified as point-like sources and green symbols correspond to diffuse gas (see Section 4.2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations for ions probing the low and intermediate ionization zone. Left column shows 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations between the low ionization ions ([N ii], [O ii] and [S ii]). The right column shows 𝑇𝑒 relations between the low ionization ions and [S iii]. Black dots sho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations for [O iii] with all lower ionization zone ions ([N ii], [O ii], [S ii] and [S iii]). Black dots show CHAOS data, pink triangles show bright point-like sources in our data and green diamonds show diffuse gas in our data. The black line shows the linea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations colored by O32, 𝑛𝑒 and E(B-V). Top panels show the 𝑇𝑒([O iii]) - 𝑇𝑒([S iii]) relation, bottom panels show 𝑇𝑒([S iii]) - 𝑇𝑒([O ii]). Left panels are colored by O32 in red, middle panels are colored by 𝑛𝑒 in blue and right panels are colored by E(B-V) i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1759 2020

  3. [3]

    A., Skillman E

    Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Moustakas J., Johnson-Groh M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...16B 806, 16

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/16 2015

  4. [4]

    A., Pogge R

    Berg D. A., Pogge R. W., Skillman E. D., Croxall K. V., Moustakas J., Rogers N. S. J., Sun J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...96B 893, 96

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eab 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Chisholm J., Erb D

    Berg D. A., Chisholm J., Erb D. K., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Olivier G. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..170B 922, 170

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b 2021

  6. [6]

    Brinchmann J., Kunth D., Durret F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...485..657B 485, 657

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809783 2008

  7. [7]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Calzetti D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...75C 811, 75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/75 2015

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    Cameron A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Katz H., Rey M

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Rey M. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522L..89C 522, L89

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..798C 466, 798

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    Carniani S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1170C 478, 1170

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    arXiv:2504.03839

    Cataldi E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250403839C p. arXiv:2504.03839

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Chisholm J., Tremonti C., Leitherer C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1690C 481, 1690

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Pogge R

    Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Moustakas J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...42C 808, 42

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Pogge R

    Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Moustakas J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830....4C 830, 4

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Curti M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..425C 518, 425

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Esteban C., Bresolin F., Peimbert M., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Peimbert A., Mesa-Delgado A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..654E 700, 654

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..186F 505, 186

    Fisher D. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..186F 505, 186

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C

    Freudling W., Romaniello M., Bramich D. M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C. E., Moehler S., Neeser M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..96F 559, A96

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., 2004, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ADNDT..87....1F 87, 1

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., Irimia A., 2006, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/j.adt.2006.03.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ADNDT..92..607F 92, 607

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...41G 362, 41

    2005

  18. [26]

    R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    Garnett D. R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Misselt K. A., Landolt A. U., Wolff M. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..279G 594, 279

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    Guo Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...39G 800, 39

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    Hamel-Bravo M. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.121H 670, A121

    Herenz E. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.121H 670, A121

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Ramsbottom C

    Hudson C. E., Ramsbottom C. A., Scott M. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...65H 750, 65

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    I., Lipovetsky V

    Izotov Y. I., Lipovetsky V. A., Chaffee F. H., Foltz C. B., Guseva N. G., Kniazev A. Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476..698I 476, 698

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    I., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Fricke K. J., Papaderos P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...503...61I 503, 61

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    I., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Fricke K. J., Henkel C., Schaerer D., Thuan T. X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.138I 646, A138

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Jaiswal S., Omar A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462...92J 462, 92

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Katz H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..592K 518, 592

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    2003

  30. [38]

    M., Guerrero M

    Kehrig C., V \' lchez J. M., Guerrero M. A., Iglesias-P \'a ramo J., Hunt L. K., Duarte-Puertas S., Ramos-Larios G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1081K 480, 1081

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Ellison S

    Kewley L. J., Ellison S. L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1183K 681, 1183

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Nicholls D

    Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..511K 57, 511

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Skillman E

    Kobulnicky H. A., Skillman E. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..527K 135, 527

    2008 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Graziani R., Hoffman Y., Pomar \`e de D., Shaya E

    Kourkchi E., Courtois H. M., Graziani R., Hoffman Y., Pomar \`e de D., Shaya E. J., Tully R. B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab620e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...67K 159, 67

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    Laseter I. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    R., Dopita M

    L \'o pez-S \'a nchez \'A . R., Dopita M. A., Kewley L. J., Zahid H. J., Nicholls D. C., Scharw \"a chter J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21145.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.2630L 426, 2630

    2012

  38. [47]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    Maiolino R., Mannucci F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&ARv..27....3M 27, 3

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    Marasco A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..92M 670, A92

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5425M 508, 5425

    McLeod A. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5425M 508, 5425

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    M \'e ndez-Delgado J. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...91M 785, 91

    Mendoza C., Bautista M. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...91M 785, 91

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    arXiv:2502.07662

    Mingozzi M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250207662M p. arXiv:2502.07662

    2025 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    Monreal-Ibero A., Walsh J. R., Iglesias-P \'a ramo J., Sandin C., Rela \ n o M., P \'e rez-Montero E., V \' lchez J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A.130M 603, A130

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    Morishita T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971...43M 971, 43

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    Morisset C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..37M 594, A37

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  49. [58]

    Paalvast M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..40P 618, A40

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    I., Guseva N

    Papaderos P., Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Thuan T. X., Fricke K. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..119P 454, 119

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    Peimbert M., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..825P 150, 825

    1967 doi

  52. [61]

    I., V \' lchez J

    P \'e rez-Montero E., D \' az A. I., V \' lchez J. M., Kehrig C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...449..193P 449, 193

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    S., Mattsson L., V \' lchez J

    Pilyugin L. S., Mattsson L., V \' lchez J. M., Cedr \'e s B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15182.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..485P 398, 485

    2009

  54. [63]

    Popesso P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1526P 519, 1526

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    E., Johnson K

    Reines A. E., Johnson K. E., Hunt L. K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.1415R 136, 1415

    2008 doi

  56. [65]

    R \'e my-Ruyer A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...563A..31R 563, A31

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    Rickards Vaught R., Sandstrom K., Phangs Team 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 235.06

    2023

  58. [67]

    Rogers N. S. J., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Croxall K. V., Bartlett J., Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Moustakas J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac947d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...44R 939, 44

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    R., Kunth D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9410023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...294..432R 294, 432

    Roy J. R., Kunth D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9410023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...294..432R 294, 432

    1995 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1427S 491, 1427

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1427S 491, 1427

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    L., Shapley A

    Sanders R. L., Shapley A. E., Topping M. W., Reddy N. A., Brammer G. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acedad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...54S 955, 54

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.120403.143327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..275S 42, 275

    Scalo J., Elmegreen B. G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.120403.143327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..275S 42, 275

    2004

  63. [72]

    Schaerer D., Contini T., Kunth D., Meynet G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481L..75S 481, L75

    1997 doi

  64. [73]

    I., Naidu R., Guseva N

    Schaerer D., Marques-Chaves R., Barrufet L., Oesch P., Izotov Y. I., Naidu R., Guseva N. G., Brammer G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665L...4S 665, L4

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Wisnioski E., Acharyya A., Federrath C., Forbes J

    Sharda P., Krumholz M. R., Wisnioski E., Acharyya A., Federrath C., Forbes J. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504...53S 504, 53

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    D., C \^o t \'e S., Miller B

    Skillman E. D., C \^o t \'e S., Miller B. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..610S 125, 610

    2003 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Crowther P

    Smith L. J., Crowther P. A., Calzetti D., Sidoli F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...38S 823, 38

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Sochi T., Badnell N

    Storey P. J., Sochi T., Badnell N. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3028S 441, 3028

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    Str \"o mgren B., 1939, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939ApJ....89..526S 89, 526

    1939 doi

  70. [79]

    Tang M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.1657T 526, 1657

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...12T 195, 12

    Tayal S. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...12T 195, 12

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    Tayal S. S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    2010 doi

  73. [82]

    X., Izotov Y

    Thuan T. X., Izotov Y. I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/491657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..161..240T 161, 240

    2005 doi

  74. [83]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  75. [84]

    B., Courtois H

    Tully R. B., Courtois H. M., Sorce J. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...50T 152, 50

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..389T 55, 389

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    Vazdekis A., Koleva M., Ricciardelli E., R \"o ck B., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3409V 463, 3409

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    Veilleux S., Cecil G., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..769V 43, 769

    2005 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Vernet J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A.105V 536, A105

    2011 doi

  80. [89]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    A., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161..821W 161, 821

    Welch G. A., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161..821W 161, 821

    1970 doi

  82. [91]

    P., Herenz E

    Wofford A., Vidal-Garc \' a A., Feltre A., Chevallard J., Charlot S., Stark D. P., Herenz E. C., Hayes M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2908W 500, 2908

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Schady P., Chen T

    Yates R. M., Schady P., Chen T. W., Schweyer T., Wiseman P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A.107Y 634, A107

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.