pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.14328 · v3 · pith:DIWAGBTYnew · submitted 2025-09-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Cosmic-ray impact on optical and mid-infrared emission line diagnostics in NGC 5728

E. Koutsoumpou , J. A. Fern\'andez-Ontiveros , K. M. Dasyra , L. Spinoglio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic raysnarrow line regionemission line diagnosticsNGC 5728photoionizationmid-infraredAGN feedbackJWST
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmic rays heat inner gas clouds in NGC 5728 and enhance low-ionization optical emission lines.

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

The paper shows that cosmic rays from AGN jets and supernovae heat the inner regions of narrow line region gas clouds in NGC 5728. Models and MUSE optical plus JWST mid-infrared observations indicate that cosmic rays strengthen low-ionization lines such as those from [Ar II] and [Ne II], while high-ionization lines like [Ne V] stay reliable tracers of photoionization alone. This matters because it offers a way to separate cosmic ray effects from shocks and photoionization when both optical and mid-infrared data are available, clarifying AGN feedback on the surrounding gas.

Core claim

Cosmic rays serve as a significant feedback mechanism that heats the interstellar medium and modifies its chemical composition in narrow line region clouds. The study finds that cosmic rays are instrumental in heating the inner regions of gas clouds, enhancing emission of low-ionization optical lines. Mid-infrared data reveal that emission lines like [Ar II] and [Ne II] within the JWST MIRI field of view are sensitive to cosmic rays. In contrast, high-ionization lines such as [Ne V] serve as robust tracers of photoionization insensitive to cosmic rays. Mixed optical and mid-infrared diagnostics help distinguish the relative roles of cosmic rays and shocks.

What carries the argument

CLOUDY photoionization models that vary cosmic ray ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density to reproduce observed line ratios from the narrow line region of NGC 5728.

If this is right

  • Low-ionization mid-infrared lines respond to cosmic ray heating while high-ionization lines do not.
  • Mixed optical and mid-infrared diagnostics allow separation of cosmic ray and shock contributions.
  • The method resolves the degeneracy between metallicity and cosmic ray ionization in emission line analysis.
  • High-ionization lines remain useful tracers of photoionization even when cosmic rays are present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling approach could be tested on other active galaxies to see how cosmic ray influence scales with nuclear activity.
  • Including cosmic rays in standard narrow line region models might change inferred gas densities or metallicities in AGN hosts.
  • Future multi-wavelength surveys could use these line ratios to map cosmic ray feedback across galaxy centers.

Load-bearing premise

The CLOUDY models with varied cosmic ray ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density capture the dominant physical processes in the narrow line region clouds without large unmodeled contributions from detailed shock microphysics or geometry effects.

What would settle it

Observing no increase in the ratios of low-ionization lines such as [Ne II] relative to high-ionization lines like [Ne V] when cosmic ray ionization rate is raised in the models would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14328 by E. Koutsoumpou, J. A. Fern\'andez-Ontiveros, K. M. Dasyra, L. Spinoglio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Apertures chosen to extract spectra from the spectroscopic images of NGC 5728, depicted in different shades of purple from deep purple being the nuclear aperture “N" to pale lilac in increasing distance, also noted with numbers. The apertures are drawn over (a) the continuum in Channel 1 of MIRI, extracted in the rest-frame range 5.90–6.05µm, and over [Ar ii]λ7µm, [S iv]λ10.5µm, [Ne ii]λ12.8µm, [Ne v]λ14.9… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: BPT diagrams depicting [N ii]/Hα, [S ii]/Hα, and [O i]/Hα ratios. The observations from NGC 5728, and NGC 1320 are marked with stars, and a red diamond, respectively. The cyan squares, lime green diamonds, and magenta stars represent jet-affected (JR), intermediate jet-affected (IJR), and non-jet-affected (NJR) regions, respectively, and correspond to the shaded areas in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagrams with the AGN photoionization models compared with the observations from the selected apertures in NGC 5728 (Fig.1). The different shades of purple going from deep purple to pale lilac/white represent the increasing distance from the nucleus, as also noted with numbers, with “N" being the nuclear aperture. The different shapes, square, thin diamond, and star, represent the nucleus/jet impacted, int… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature and line emissivity versus depth in the simulated cloud for AGN models, for an initial density nH = 100 cm−3 , and for ζCR = 10−16 s −1 , 10−15 s −1 , 10−14 s −1 , 10−13 s −1 , and 10−12 s −1 , and log U = −3.0. The different panels a-f correspond to kinetic temperature and the emissivity of [S iii]18.7µm, [S iv]10.5µm, [Ar ii]7µm, [Ar iii]8.9µm, [Ar v]7.9µm, [Ne ii]12.8µm, [Ne iii]15.5µm, and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ionic fraction versus depth in the simulated cloud for AGN models, for an initial density nH = 100 cm−3 , and for ζCR = 10−16 s −1 , 10−15 s −1 , 10−14 s −1 , 10−13 s −1 , and 10−12 s −1 , from left to right. Top row showcases the Ar and bottom row the Ne ionic fractions. The blue-shaded area indicates the approximate region where CR heating becomes dominant. lines can continue to be emitted efficiently in… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagnostic diagrams depicting the area covered by AGN models with solar abundances for −3.5 ≤ log U ≤ −1.5, and for 0 ≤ log nH ≤ 4. The solid contour lines map regions containing 10%, 50%, and 90% of the models for ζCR = 10−16 s −1 , 10−15 s −1 , 10−14 s −1 , 10−13 s −1 , and 10−12 s −1 , from left to right in green, teal, blue, purple, and red colored contours, respectively.In the background are archival … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cosmic rays (CRs), from active galactic nuclei (AGN) jets and supernovae (SNe), serve as a significant feedback mechanism influencing emission lines in narrow line region (NLR) clouds. These highly energetic particles, propelled by shocks, heat the interstellar medium (ISM) and modify its chemical composition. This study investigates the role of CRs, particularly in their ability to excite gas and align with observed line ratios across UV and optical diagnostics. We employ CLOUDY to explore CR ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density effects on optical and mid-infrared (MIR) emission. Our analysis includes high-quality optical data from the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) for NGC 5728, supplemented by infrared observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Our previous results indicate that CRs are instrumental in heating the inner regions of gas clouds, enhancing emission of low-ionization optical lines. Mid-infrared data reveal that emission lines like [Ar II] and [Ne II] within the JWST Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) field of view are sensitive to CRs. In contrast, high-ionization lines (for example, [Ne V]) serve as robust tracers of photoionization insensitive to CRs. Moreover, mixed optical and MIR diagnostics offer insight into the relative roles of CRs and shocks, which often produce similar signatures in emission lines. We find that while both mechanisms can elevate certain line ratios, their influence on MIR diagnostics diverges: shocks and CRs affect low-ionization lines differently, allowing for a better understanding when multi-wavelength data are available. Our approach not only helps to resolve the degeneracy between metallicity and CR ionization but also enables the potential differentiation of shocks and CR-driven processes in AGN.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the effects of cosmic rays on optical and mid-infrared emission line diagnostics in the narrow line region of NGC 5728. Using CLOUDY photoionization models that vary cosmic-ray ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density, the authors compare results to MUSE optical spectra and JWST MIRI observations. They conclude that cosmic rays heat inner cloud regions and enhance low-ionization optical lines, that MIR lines such as [Ar II] and [Ne II] are sensitive to CRs while high-ionization lines like [Ne V] are robust photoionization tracers, and that combined optical-MIR diagnostics can distinguish CR-driven processes from shocks despite similar optical signatures.

Significance. If the central modeling results hold under more complete physical treatments, the work would offer a practical multi-wavelength strategy for breaking degeneracies in AGN NLR diagnostics between cosmic-ray ionization, shocks, and photoionization. The direct use of high-quality MUSE and JWST data on a specific target provides a concrete test case for these ideas.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the modeling strategy and qualitative conclusions are outlined, but no quantitative fit statistics, error budgets, or explicit model-data comparison metrics (e.g., predicted vs. observed line ratios with uncertainties) are supplied. This prevents verification that the data support the stated line sensitivities and is load-bearing for the central claims about CR effects and diagnostic utility.
  2. Modeling approach (as described in the abstract): the CLOUDY grids vary only CR ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density. The claim that MIR diagnostics diverge between CRs and shocks (allowing differentiation when optical signatures are similar) requires either explicit inclusion of shock microphysics (e.g., via CLOUDY shock options or MAPPINGS-style prescriptions) or a demonstration that unmodeled effects such as magnetic compression, non-equilibrium ionization, or NLR geometry do not alter low-ionization MIR ratios in ways that undermine the separation. This is load-bearing for the differentiation result.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract references 'our previous results' without a specific citation or quantitative description of how the current grids extend or differ from prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments, indicating where revisions will be made to address the concerns while preserving the core scientific approach of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the modeling strategy and qualitative conclusions are outlined, but no quantitative fit statistics, error budgets, or explicit model-data comparison metrics (e.g., predicted vs. observed line ratios with uncertainties) are supplied. This prevents verification that the data support the stated line sensitivities and is load-bearing for the central claims about CR effects and diagnostic utility.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is currently qualitative and would benefit from explicit quantitative anchors. The main text already presents direct model-observation comparisons for key lines (e.g., [Ne II], [Ar II], [Ne V]) with associated uncertainties derived from the MUSE and JWST data, as well as goodness-of-fit assessments across the CLOUDY grid. In the revised manuscript we will condense the most diagnostic quantitative results (specific line-ratio offsets and their uncertainties) into the abstract to make the support for the claimed sensitivities immediately verifiable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Modeling approach (as described in the abstract): the CLOUDY grids vary only CR ionization rate, ionization parameter, and initial hydrogen density. The claim that MIR diagnostics diverge between CRs and shocks (allowing differentiation when optical signatures are similar) requires either explicit inclusion of shock microphysics (e.g., via CLOUDY shock options or MAPPINGS-style prescriptions) or a demonstration that unmodeled effects such as magnetic compression, non-equilibrium ionization, or NLR geometry do not alter low-ionization MIR ratios in ways that undermine the separation. This is load-bearing for the differentiation result.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present grids isolate cosmic-ray effects within a pure photoionization framework and do not run dedicated shock models. The stated divergence rests on comparing our CR-enhanced predictions against published shock-model libraries (primarily MAPPINGS) that already show distinct MIR low-ionization behavior under shock heating. To address the concern directly, the revised manuscript will include a new subsection that (i) tabulates the relevant literature shock predictions for the same MIR lines, (ii) discusses the expected impact of unmodeled factors such as NLR geometry and non-equilibrium ionization on the separation, and (iii) presents a limited sensitivity test varying cloud thickness and density profile within CLOUDY. A full self-consistent shock-plus-CR calculation lies outside the current scope but can be noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior team results; central claims rest on independent CLOUDY forward modeling matched to external MUSE and JWST observations

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Our previous results indicate that CRs are instrumental in heating the inner regions of gas clouds, enhancing emission of low-ionization optical lines."

    This sentence invokes prior results from the same team to support the role of CRs. While not the central derivation (which relies on new CLOUDY runs vs. MUSE/JWST data), it constitutes a self-citation that is not independently verified within the current manuscript.

full rationale

The paper's core analysis employs CLOUDY grids varying CR ionization rate, ionization parameter, and n_H to interpret observed line ratios from independent MUSE optical and JWST MIRI data on NGC 5728. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are present in the provided text. The sole self-reference appears in the abstract as a supporting statement rather than a load-bearing premise for the new multi-wavelength diagnostics. This qualifies as a minor self-citation (score 2) without reducing the derivation to its own inputs. The modeling is compared against external benchmarks, keeping the work self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger records the variables and modeling assumptions explicitly named; no numerical fitted values or additional entities are stated.

free parameters (3)
  • CR ionization rate
    Varied as a free parameter in CLOUDY runs to explore effects on line ratios
  • ionization parameter
    Explored as an independent variable controlling ionization state
  • initial hydrogen density
    Initial condition varied across model grids
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption CLOUDY correctly incorporates cosmic-ray ionization and heating physics
    Central modeling tool invoked to predict line ratios
  • domain assumption Observed line ratios primarily reflect the modeled CR, density, and ionization-parameter variations
    Required when mapping simulation results onto MUSE and JWST data

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5890 in / 1772 out tokens · 55764 ms · 2026-05-21T22:16:00.583654+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    2015, , 574, A85

    Aalto , S., Garcia-Burillo , S., Muller , S., et al. 2015, , 574, A85

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy , J

    Abazajian , K. N., Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2009, , 182, 543

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    G., Groves , B

    Allen , M. G., Groves , B. A., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., & Kewley , L. J. 2008, , 178, 20

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    2024, , 690, A95

    Alonso Herrero , A., Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Labiano , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A95

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2023, , 672, A108

    \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Labiano , A., Guillard , P., et al. 2023, , 672, A108

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2023, , 942, L37

    Armus , L., Lai , T., U , V., et al. 2023, , 942, L37

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003

    Bacon , R., Piqueras , L., Conseil , S., Richard , J., & Shepherd , M. 2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    2023, A&A, 670, A4

    Bacon, Roland , Brinchmann, Jarle , Conseil, Simon , et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A4

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Baldi , R. D. 2023, , 31, 3

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    work page 1981

  14. [14]

    1985, , 143, 334

    Binette , L. 1985, , 143, 334

    work page 1985

  15. [15]

    A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F

    Blanc , G. A., Kewley , L., Vogt , F. P. A., & Dopita , M. A. 2015, , 798, 99

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    2013, , 21, 70

    Blasi , P. 2013, , 21, 70

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 2112

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 2112

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 1151

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    2001, Publications of the ASP, 113, 1449

    Calzetti , D. 2001, Publications of the ASP, 113, 1449

    work page 2001

  22. [22]

    2023, , 59, 327

    Chatzikos , M., Bianchi , S., Camilloni , F., et al. 2023, , 59, 327

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    2024, , 689, A263

    Davies , R., Shimizu , T., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A263

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Dopita , M. A. & Sutherland , R. S. 1995, , 455, 468

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    Dors , O. L. 2021, , 507, 466

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    L., Valerdi, M., Freitas-Lemes, P., et al

    Dors, O. L., Valerdi, M., Freitas-Lemes, P., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 5506–5527

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    P., Satyapal , S., & Marcu , D

    Dudik , R. P., Satyapal , S., & Marcu , D. 2009, , 691, 1501

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    P., Weingartner , J

    Dudik , R. P., Weingartner , J. C., Satyapal , S., et al. 2007, , 664, 71

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    & Mould , J

    Durr \'e , M. & Mould , J. 2018, , 867, 149

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    2016, , 456, 3354

    Feltre , A., Charlot , S., & Gutkin , J. 2016, , 456, 3354

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    2023, , 675, A74

    Feltre , A., Gruppioni , C., Marchetti , L., et al. 2023, , 675, A74

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 53, 385

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    J., Done, C., Jin, C., Landt, H., & Ward, M

    Ferland, G. J., Done, C., Jin, C., Landt, H., & Ward, M. J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 5917

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    J., Fabian , A

    Ferland , G. J., Fabian , A. C., Hatch , N. A., et al. 2009, , 392, 1475

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    A., P \'e rez-Montero , E., V \' lchez , J

    Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., P \'e rez-Montero , E., V \' lchez , J. M., Amor \' n , R., & Spinoglio , L. 2021, , 652, A23

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    A., Spinoglio , L., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al

    Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., Spinoglio , L., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2016, , 226, 19

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros, J. A. et al. 2025, in preparation

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    2022, , 30, 4

    Gabici , S. 2022, , 30, 4

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, 579

    Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Sturm, E., et al. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, 579

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    2018, , 857, 66

    Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., Fischer , J., Bruderer , S., et al. 2018, , 857, 66

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    2013, , 550, A25

    Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., Fischer , J., Bruderer , S., et al. 2013, , 550, A25

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 204

    Goold, K., Seth, A., Molina, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 204

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Goold, K. S. et al. 2025, in preparation

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Goulding , A. D. & Alexander , D. M. 2009, , 398, 1165

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    A., Dopita , M

    Groves , B. A., Dopita , M. A., & Sutherland , R. S. 2004, , 153, 9

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    A., Heckman , T

    Groves , B. A., Heckman , T. M., & Kauffmann , G. 2006, , 371, 1559

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03726

    Hatano , S., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03726

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    2024, , 966, 170

    Hatano , S., Ouchi , M., Umeda , H., et al. 2024, , 966, 170

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    2025, , 693, A321

    Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Alonso-Herrero , A., Labiano , A., et al. 2025, , 693, A321

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    J., Jones , L

    Hernandez , S., Smith , L. J., Jones , L. H., et al. 2025, , 983, 154

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 2468

    Hirschmann, M., Charlot, S., Feltre, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 2468

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    2012, , 425, 907

    Jin , C., Ward , M., & Done , C. 2012, , 425, 907

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Kantzas , D., Markoff , S., Cooper , A. J., et al. 2023, , 524, 1326

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    work page 2003

  56. [56]

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

    Kewley , L. J., Groves , B., Kauffmann , G., & Heckman , T. 2006, , 372, 961

    work page 2006

  57. [57]

    A., Dasyra , K

    Koutsoumpou , E., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., Dasyra , K. M., & Spinoglio , L. 2025, , 693, A215

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    A., Infante-Sainz , R., et al

    Lumbreras-Calle , A., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., Infante-Sainz , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08327

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A42

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    2024, , 689, A78

    Marconi , A., Amiri , A., Feltre , A., et al. 2024, , 689, A78

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    McKee , C. F. 1989, , 345, 782

    work page 1989

  62. [62]

    2019, , 622, A146

    Mingozzi, M., Cresci, G., Venturi, G., et al. 2019, , 622, A146

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    L., et al

    Mingozzi , M., Garcia del Valle-Espinosa , M., James , B. L., et al. 2025, , 985, 253

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2015, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    B., Krabbe , A

    Oliveira , C. B., Krabbe , A. C., Dors , O. L., et al. 2024, , 531, 199

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Padovani , M., Galli , D., & Glassgold , A. E. 2009, , 501, 619

    work page 2009

  67. [67]

    V., Galli , D., & Caselli , P

    Padovani , M., Ivlev , A. V., Galli , D., & Caselli , P. 2018, , 614, A111

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    M., Assef , R

    Padovani , P., Alexander , D. M., Assef , R. J., et al. 2017, , 25, 2

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    2022, , 665, L11

    Pereira-Santaella , M., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Garc \' a-Bernete , I., et al. 2022, , 665, L11

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    M., Alonso-Herrero , A., & Rieke , G

    Pereira-Santaella , M., Diamond-Stanic , A. M., Alonso-Herrero , A., & Rieke , G. H. 2010, , 725, 2270

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    A., & V \' lchez , J

    P \'e rez-D \' az , B., P \'e rez-Montero , E., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., & V \' lchez , J. M. 2022, , 666, A115

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    A., et al

    P \'e rez-D \' az , B., P \'e rez-Montero , E., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., et al. 2024, , 685, A168

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    2014, , 441, 2663

    P \'e rez-Montero , E. 2014, , 441, 2663

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    & D \' az , \'A

    P \'e rez-Montero , E. & D \' az , \'A . I. 2007, , 377, 1195

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    L., V \' lchez , J

    P \'e rez-Montero , E., Dors , O. L., V \' lchez , J. M., et al. 2019, , 489, 2652

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    A., P \'e rez-D \' az , B., et al

    P \'e rez-Montero , E., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A., P \'e rez-D \' az , B., et al. 2024, , 684, A40

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 4289–4309

    Pérez-Díaz, B., Masegosa, J., Márquez, I., & Pérez-Montero, E. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 4289–4309

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    T., Simpson , C., Polimera , M

    Richardson , C. T., Simpson , C., Polimera , M. S., et al. 2022, , 927, 165

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Rybicki , G. B. & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics ( John Wiley & Sons )

    work page 1979

  80. [80]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 1415

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 1415

    work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.