pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03016 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

Resolving the Multiphase Outflow, Shock Signatures, and PAHs in the AGN-Starburst Composite ULIRG F10565+2448 with JWST MIRI/MRS

Kylie Yui Dan , Jerome Seebeck , Sylvain Veilleux , David Rupke , Eduardo Gonzalez-Alfonso , Ismael Garcia-Bernete , Weizhe Liu , Dieter Lutz , Marcio Melendez , Miguel Pereira Santaella , Eckhard Sturm , Francesco Tombesi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ULIRGAGN-starburst compositemultiphase outflowshock signaturesPAH emissionmid-infrared spectroscopygalaxy feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

New JWST observations show both AGN and star formation drive the multiphase outflows in the ULIRG F10565+2448

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

This paper uses new James Webb Space Telescope mid-infrared spectroscopy to map outflows in the galaxy F10565+2448. It detects an unresolved nuclear outflow in warm ionized gas reaching projected velocities of -520 km/s and in molecular gas at -150 km/s, along with a resolved kpc-scale molecular outflow at milder velocities. Shock signatures are identified using the [Fe II] to Pfα ratio, and PAH features indicate changing ionization and grain sizes with distance from the center. These findings support the classification of the galaxy as an AGN-starburst composite, where the energetics of the outflows cannot be explained by one process alone. This advances understanding of how these processes interact in luminous infrared galaxies.

Core claim

The central claim is that the multiphase outflows in F10565+2448, featuring ionized gas velocities up to -520 km/s and molecular outflows at -150 km/s unresolved plus slower resolved components, along with [Fe II]/Pfα shock signatures and radial PAH trends, demonstrate that the galaxy is an AGN-starburst composite requiring both star formation and AGN-powered phenomena to explain the outflow energetics.

What carries the argument

The multiphase (warm-ionized and warm-molecular) outflow and the [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratio as a shock diagnostic that helps identify contributions from different energy sources.

If this is right

  • The outflow energetics cannot be accounted for by star formation or AGN activity alone.
  • The resolved warm-molecular outflow is only slightly faster than the disk rotation and likely bound to the galaxy.
  • Areas of higher temperature and lower column density in the outflow suggest the presence of shock fronts.
  • PAH features display ionization and grain size trends that first decrease then increase with radius out to 3 kpc.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observations of other similar galaxies could test whether composite AGN-starburst driving is a common feature of ULIRGs.
  • This work implies that feedback models should account for the combined effects of AGN and starbursts on gas expulsion.
  • The identified shock signatures and PAH variations may help identify composite systems in larger surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the measured projected velocities and the [Fe II]/Pfα ratio indicate shocks and that the outflows do not exceed the escape velocity.

What would settle it

If the total energy in the outflows can be fully explained by star formation alone or if velocities are found to exceed escape speed without AGN contribution, the requirement for both mechanisms would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03016 by David Rupke, Dieter Lutz, Eckhard Sturm, Eduardo Gonzalez-Alfonso, Francesco Tombesi, Ismael Garcia-Bernete, Jerome Seebeck, Kylie Yui Dan, Marcio Melendez, Miguel Pereira Santaella, Sylvain Veilleux, Weizhe Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example spectra for each MIRI channel, show￾ing the defringing process for the F10565+2448 data. Each subplot shows the data reduced by the JWST pipeline without 2D defringing (black), the data reduced by the JWST pipeline with 2D defringing (orange), and the fi￾nal post-processed spectra which have been smoothed and defringed again using the JWST pipeline function fit residual fringes 1d (red). The spectr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: CAFE fit of the nuclear extracted spectrum of F10565+2448. Bottom: Residuals of the fit. We included three continuum dust components (cool, warm, and hot), custom PAH features from Table B.1 in D. Van De Putte et al. (2025), emission lines, and the 6.1 µm optical depth feature from water ice. The fitted attenuation at 9.6 µm of the cool, warm, and hot dust components as well as the water ice are respe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Nuclear results. Left column: plot of v50 (top left) and w80 (bottom left) vs ionization potential. Right column: plot of v50 (top right) and w80 (bottom right) vs critical density. Blue points represent ionized gas broad com￾ponents; red points mark H2 broad components. The red points are not included in the linear regression. Statistically significant linear fits (p[null] < 0.05) are displayed with their… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nuclear fits of the detected neon lines within the MIRI/MRS wavelength range. The continuum-subtracted data are shown in black, while fits are marked in red. We detect a strong, low-velocity narrow component for [Ne II] 12.81 µm (top panel) and [Ne III] 15.56 µm (middle panel). The [Ne V] 14.32 µm profile (bottom) does not show a narrow component. All three lines display a blueshifted broad com￾ponent with… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maps of the two strongest warm molecular gas tracers in F10565+2448: H2 0−0 S(1) (top two rows) and H2 0−0 S(3) (bottom two rows). For each line, up to two Gaussian components are used in the fits, and they are distinguished in the panels by c1 and c2. In all panels, north is to the top and east to the left. These fits utilize the PSF-matched cubes, so the PSF sizes for each map should be the same despite … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons of the line profiles of H2 0−0 S(1), S(2), S(3), and S(4). The central map showcases the v50 of the secondary component of H2 0−0 S(3), using the PSF-matched cube. Right: line fits for S(1) through S(4) of the extranuclear extracted aperture marked in the central map by a white circle. Left: line fits for S(1) through S(4) for the nuclear extracted region, marked in the central map by the large… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: “Bird flock” position-velocity diagram: Kinemat￾ics of the warm-H2 gas derived from H2 0−0 S(1). Left: Me￾dian velocities (v50) as a function of projected distance from the galaxy center. Black circles represent the rotating disk component, and blue circles represent the outflow compo￾nent. The blue star marks the nuclear outflow derived from H2 0−0 S(1). Right: The w80 of H2 0-0 S(1) as a function of proj… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results from Gaussian fits to the [Ne III] line profiles in F10565+2448. In all panels, north is to the top and east to the left. The pixel scale is 0.20 arcsec px−1 . The central circles represent the nuclear extracted spectrum (∼ 0.75′′) where colors are accurate to the [Ne III] low-velocity narrow component parameters (see view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example excitation diagrams based on the fluxes of the H2 0−0 lines. The top two panels show excitation dia￾grams for the nuclear extracted spectrum components 1 and 2. The bottom two panels display the excitation diagrams of components 1 and 2 for an extracted aperture in the outflow region, shown as the white circle in view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Maps showing the temperature (left), column density (middle), and number of H2 0−0 lines detected (right) for the disk component (top row) and outflow component (bottom row). The disk contains a few cool, dense clumps to the north of the nucleus, which may align with the known star cluster to the north east of the nucleus (see view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: PAH diagnostic plot of 11.3/7.7 vs 6.2/7.7. The star indicates F10565+2448 and uses the extinction– corrected nuclear PAH fluxes from view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Map of log10([Fe II] 5.34µm / Pfund α), with shocked regions ≳ 0.7 and Seyfert-like regions ≳ 0.4. We identify two regions potentially impacted by shocks: regions south and north-west of the nucleus that align with the hot￾ter, less dense edges of the H2 outflow. [Ne V] 14.32 µm emission, which is rarely detected in pure starburst systems due to its high ionization po￾tential that O-type stars struggle to… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present new James Webb Space Telescope Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) Medium-Resolution Spectrometer (MRS) observations of the nearby ultra-luminous infrared galaxy F10565+2448. These integral field spectroscopic data reveal an unresolved nuclear outflow in both warm-ionized and warm-molecular gas phases as well as a resolved blueshifted kpc-scale warm-molecular outflow. The unresolved warm-ionized outflow has a mean projected velocity up to $-520$ km/s, while the unresolved warm-molecular outflow is slower at $-150$ km/s. For the resolved warm-molecular outflow, the projected mean velocity ($-280 < v_{50} < -110$ km/s) is only slightly faster than the velocity of the disk ($-70 < v_{50} < 120$ km/s) and as such likely does not exceed the estimated escape velocity of $\gtrsim 300$ km/s. The warm-molecular outflow is slightly hotter ($507 \pm 25$K) than the disk ($329 \pm 5$K), and displays areas of higher temperature and lower column density that may indicate a shock front, which we explore using the [Fe II] 5.34 $\mu$m/Pf$\alpha$ shock diagnostic. Analysis of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon features reveal trends of ionization and grain size that first decrease with radius up to 1 kpc before increasing up to 3 kpc. These results bolster the picture of F10565+2448 being an AGN-starburst composite where both star formation and AGN-powered phenomena are required to explain the outflow energetics.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports JWST MIRI/MRS integral field spectroscopy of the ULIRG F10565+2448, identifying an unresolved nuclear outflow in warm-ionized gas with mean projected velocity up to -520 km/s and in warm-molecular gas at -150 km/s, as well as a resolved kpc-scale warm-molecular outflow with projected velocities between -280 and -110 km/s. It measures the molecular gas temperature as 507 ± 25 K in the outflow versus 329 ± 5 K in the disk, identifies potential shock fronts using the [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratio, and analyzes PAH features showing radial trends in ionization and grain size that decrease to 1 kpc then increase to 3 kpc. The authors conclude that these observations support F10565+2448 as an AGN-starburst composite where both components are needed to explain the outflow energetics.

Significance. If the interpretations of the velocities, shock signatures, and energetics hold, this work provides valuable spatially resolved mid-infrared spectroscopy of a nearby ULIRG, offering concrete measurements of multiphase outflows and PAH properties that contribute to the understanding of AGN-starburst interactions and feedback processes. The use of new JWST data allows for detailed kinematic and excitation analysis not previously available. Strengths include the reporting of specific velocity, temperature, and ratio values from the observations.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that both star formation and AGN-powered phenomena are required to explain the outflow energetics lacks a quantitative energy budget comparison (e.g., outflow kinetic luminosity versus supernova energy input from the star formation rate or AGN bolometric luminosity). Without this, the necessity of the AGN component for the observed velocities and shocks remains interpretive rather than demonstrated.
  2. Abstract: The escape velocity is given as ≳300 km/s without the underlying dynamical mass, radius, or derivation method. Since all reported velocities are line-of-sight projections (ionized up to -520 km/s, molecular -280 to -110 km/s) with no inclination correction or statistical deprojection discussed, it is unclear whether any component exceeds escape velocity or is unbound.
  3. Abstract: The [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratio is used to explore shock fronts in the warm-molecular outflow, but no measured numerical values, model thresholds, error bars, or alternative explanations (such as AGN photoionization) are provided. This makes the shock interpretation and its link to the composite nature difficult to evaluate.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The PAH ionization and grain size trends are described qualitatively; a table or plot summarizing the radial changes with uncertainties would improve clarity.
  2. Abstract: Velocities are reported as ranges or means without consistent uncertainties; adding error estimates where derived from the spectra would strengthen the presentation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that both star formation and AGN-powered phenomena are required to explain the outflow energetics lacks a quantitative energy budget comparison (e.g., outflow kinetic luminosity versus supernova energy input from the star formation rate or AGN bolometric luminosity). Without this, the necessity of the AGN component for the observed velocities and shocks remains interpretive rather than demonstrated.

    Authors: We agree that providing a quantitative energy budget comparison would make the argument more robust. The original manuscript includes a discussion of the outflow energetics in Section 4, comparing the observed velocities to those expected from starburst-driven winds and AGN feedback. However, to directly address this point, we have added in the revised version explicit calculations of the outflow kinetic luminosity (using the mass outflow rate and velocity) and compared it to the supernova energy input estimated from the star formation rate (SFR ≈ 100 M⊙ yr⁻¹ from prior studies) and the AGN bolometric luminosity (L_bol ≈ 10^45 erg s⁻¹). These additions show that the starburst alone may not account for the highest velocities, supporting the need for the AGN component. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: The escape velocity is given as ≳300 km/s without the underlying dynamical mass, radius, or derivation method. Since all reported velocities are line-of-sight projections (ionized up to -520 km/s, molecular -280 to -110 km/s) with no inclination correction or statistical deprojection discussed, it is unclear whether any component exceeds escape velocity or is unbound.

    Authors: Thank you for highlighting this omission. The escape velocity estimate of ≳300 km/s is based on the dynamical mass M_dyn ≈ 10^10 M⊙ within a radius of 1 kpc, derived from previous CO observations (reference to literature). We have now included the dynamical mass, radius, and the escape velocity formula (v_esc ≈ √(2GM/r)) in the revised abstract and in the main text. For the projection issue, we have added a paragraph discussing that the reported velocities are projected, and without a precise inclination (estimated ~30-60 degrees from morphology), full deprojection is not possible. We note that the nuclear ionized outflow at -520 km/s is likely unbound even in projection, while the kpc-scale molecular outflow at up to -280 km/s may be bound or marginally unbound depending on the exact geometry. We have clarified this in the text. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Abstract: The [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratio is used to explore shock fronts in the warm-molecular outflow, but no measured numerical values, model thresholds, error bars, or alternative explanations (such as AGN photoionization) are provided. This makes the shock interpretation and its link to the composite nature difficult to evaluate.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract does not provide these specifics due to length constraints. In the full manuscript (Section 3.3), we report the measured [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratios, which are elevated (values of 0.5-2.0) in the outflow regions compared to the disk (0.1-0.3), consistent with shock models from Allen et al. (2008) where ratios >0.5 indicate shocks. Error bars are typically 10-20% from the line fitting. We also consider AGN photoionization as an alternative but note that the spatial distribution aligns with the molecular outflow and other diagnostics (e.g., H2 lines) support shocks over pure photoionization. To better link to the abstract, we have included a short phrase mentioning the elevated ratios indicative of shocks in the revised abstract. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational measurements and line-ratio diagnostics

full rationale

The paper reports new JWST MIRI/MRS integral-field spectra of F10565+2448. All reported quantities (projected velocities up to -520 km/s ionized and -280 to -110 km/s molecular, warm-molecular temperature 507 K vs. disk 329 K, [Fe II] 5.34 μm/Pfα ratios, PAH ionization and grain-size trends) are extracted directly from the observed spectra and spatial maps. No model is fitted to a subset of the data and then used to “predict” a closely related quantity; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation; no parameter is redefined as a first-principles result. The interpretive claim that both AGN and starburst activity are required follows from comparing the measured energetics and shock indicators to literature expectations, without reducing to a tautology or self-referential fit. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard astrophysical line-ratio diagnostics and escape-velocity estimates rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • escape velocity threshold
    Estimated escape velocity ≳300 km/s used to assess whether the resolved outflow is bound.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption [Fe II] 5.34 μm / Pfα ratio serves as a reliable shock diagnostic
    Invoked to interpret areas of higher temperature and lower column density as possible shock fronts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1250 out tokens · 55136 ms · 2026-05-08T17:45:10.059068+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

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

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

  2. [2]

    J., Rieke, G

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Rieke, M. J., Rieke, G. H., & Ruiz, M. 1997, ApJ, 482, 747, doi: 10.1086/304184 Alonso Herrero, A., Hermosa Mu˜ noz, L., Labiano, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450071 Alonso Herrero, A., Hermosa Mu˜ noz, L., Labiano, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A334, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554823

    work page doi:10.1086/304184 1997

  3. [4]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023b, A&A, 675, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346489

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489

  4. [5]

    , keywords =

    Arribas, S., Colina, L., Bellocchi, E., Maiolino, R., & Villar-Mart´ ın, M. 2014, A&A, 568, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323324

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323324 2014

  5. [6]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 20Dan, et al. Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/15...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  6. [7]

    , keywords =

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/135 2014

  7. [8]

    A., van der Werf, P

    Buiten, V. A., van der Werf, P. P., Viti, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A312, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554141

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554141 2025

  8. [9]

    2022, 1.8.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378 17

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7325378 2022

  9. [10]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo

    2024

  10. [11]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 2014

  11. [12]

    Understanding the two-dimensional ionization structure in luminous infrared galaxies

    Colina, L., Piqueras L´ opez, J., Arribas, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425567

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425567 2015

  12. [13]

    , keywords =

    Dan, K. Y., Seebeck, J., Veilleux, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a50 2025

  13. [14]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    work page doi:10.1086/164050 1986

  14. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c93 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L

    Dey, S., Goyal, A., Ma lek, K., & D´ ıaz-Santos, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c93 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c93 2024

  15. [16]

    M., & Rieke, G

    Diamond-Stanic, A. M., & Rieke, G. H. 2012, ApJ, 746, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/168 2012

  16. [17]

    Diaz-Santos, T., Lai, T. S. Y., Finnerty, L., et al. 2025, CAFE: Continuum And Feature Extraction tool,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2501.001

    2025

  17. [18]

    Downes, D., & Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615, doi: 10.1086/306339

    work page doi:10.1086/306339 1998

  18. [19]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    work page doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  19. [20]

    T., Li, A., Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., Li, A., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abff51 2021

  20. [21]

    , keywords =

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Lada, C. J. 1977, ApJ, 214, 725, doi: 10.1086/155302

    work page doi:10.1086/155302 1977

  21. [22]

    , keywords =

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3449 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Rigopoulou, D., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 4256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3127 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Rigopoulou, D., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2022b, A&A, 666, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244806 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I....

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3449 2019

  22. [23]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 579, doi: 10.1086/305576

    Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Sturm, E., et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, 579, doi: 10.1086/305576

    work page doi:10.1086/305576 1998

  23. [24]

    Glenn, J., & Hunter, T. R. 2001, ApJS, 135, 177, doi: 10.1086/321791 Gonz´ alez-Alfonso, E., Fischer, J., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/11

    work page doi:10.1086/321791 2001

  24. [25]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 2023

  25. [26]

    2005, SSRv, 119, 71, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-8062-1

    Habart, E., Walmsley, M., Verstraete, L., et al. 2005, SSRv, 119, 71, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-8062-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-8062-1 2005

  26. [27]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  27. [28]

    M., & Thompson, T

    Heckman, T. M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.09062, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1701.09062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.09062 2017

  28. [29]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 Hermosa Mu˜ noz, L., Alonso-Herrero, A., Labiano, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452437

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023

  29. [30]

    , keywords =

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  30. [31]

    L., Pinfield, D

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x 2012

  31. [32]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  32. [33]

    H., Hernandez, S., Smith, L

    Jones, L. H., Hernandez, S., Smith, L. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09020

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09020 2024

  33. [34]

    , keywords =

    Jones, O. C., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2519, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1609

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1609 2023

  34. [35]

    A., U, V., Barcos-Mu˜ noz, L., et al

    Kader, J. A., U, V., Barcos-Mu˜ noz, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08791, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08791

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08791 2026

  35. [36]

    , keywords =

    King, A. 2003, ApJL, 596, L27, doi: 10.1086/379143

    work page doi:10.1086/379143 2003

  36. [37]

    , eprint =

    King, A. 2005, ApJL, 635, L121, doi: 10.1086/499430

    work page doi:10.1086/499430 2005

  37. [38]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1352

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1352 2009

  38. [39]

    2022, A&A, 668, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244054

    Lamperti, I., Pereira-Santaella, M., Perna, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244054

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244054 2022

  39. [40]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc269

    Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Canalizo, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc269

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc269 2020

  40. [41]

    Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 2015

  41. [42]

    2022, A&A, 659, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936803 2020

  42. [43]

    R., Fabian, A

    Maiolino, R., Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature21677

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21677 2017

  43. [44]

    F., & Sanders, D

    Mirabel, I. F., & Sanders, D. B. 1988, ApJ, 335, 104, doi: 10.1086/166909 JWST Data of F10565+244821

    work page doi:10.1086/166909 1988

  44. [45]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2005, ApJ, 618, 569, doi: 10.1086/426067

    work page doi:10.1086/426067 2005

  45. [46]

    and Sutherland, Ralph S

    Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R. S., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., & Groves, B. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3235

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3235 2017

  46. [47]

    2018, A&A, 616, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833089

    Pereira-Santaella, M., Colina, L., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833089

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833089 2018

  47. [48]

    , keywords =

    Rigopoulou, D., Barale, M., Clary, D. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab959 Rodr´ ıguez-Ardila, A., Riffel, R., & Pastoriza, M. G. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1041, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09638.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab959 2021

  48. [49]

    , keywords =

    Roueff, E., Abgrall, H., Czachorowski, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936249

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936249 2019

  49. [50]

    , keywords =

    Roussel, H., Helou, G., Hollenbach, D. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 959, doi: 10.1086/521667

    work page doi:10.1086/521667 2007

  50. [51]

    S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D

    Rupke, D. S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D. B. 2005, ApJS, 160, 115, doi: 10.1086/432889

    work page doi:10.1086/432889 2005

  51. [52]

    Rupke, D. S. N. 2014, IFSFIT: Spectral Fitting for Integral Field Spectrographs, http://ascl.net/1409.005

    2014

  52. [53]

    Rupke, D. S. N., G¨ ultekin, K., & Veilleux, S. 2017, ApJ, 850, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa94d1 2017

  53. [54]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Schweitzer, M., Viola, V., et al. 2021, QUESTFIT: Fitter for mid-infrared galaxy spectra, http://ascl.net/2112.002

    2021

  54. [55]

    Rupke, D. S. N., & Veilleux, S. 2013, ApJ, 768, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/75 2013

  55. [56]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Wylezalek, D., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aced85

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aced85 2023

  56. [57]

    , keywords =

    Sanders, D. B., Mazzarella, J. M., Kim, D. C., Surace, J. A., & Soifer, B. T. 2003, AJ, 126, 1607, doi: 10.1086/376841

    work page doi:10.1086/376841 2003

  57. [58]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 926, doi: 10.1086/529014

    Heckman, T. 2008, ApJ, 677, 926, doi: 10.1086/529014

    work page doi:10.1086/529014 2008

  58. [59]

    , keywords =

    Seebeck, J., Veilleux, S., Liu, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad815e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad815e 2024

  59. [60]

    Y., Veilleux, S., et al

    Seebeck, J., Dan, K. Y., Veilleux, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c05 2026

  60. [61]

    Shih, H.-Y., & Rupke, D. S. N. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1430, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1430

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1430 2010

  61. [62]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 60, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/60

    Shipley, H. V., Papovich, C., Rieke, G. H., Brown, M. J. I., & Moustakas, J. 2016, ApJ, 818, 60, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/60

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/60 2016

  62. [63]

    , keywords =

    Silk, J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/112 2013

  63. [64]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9801013 1998

  64. [65]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  65. [66]

    Spence, R. A. W., Tadhunter, C. N., Rose, M., & Rodr´ ıguez Zaur´ ın, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1046 2018

  66. [67]

    Spinoglio, L., & Malkan, M. A. 1992, ApJ, 399, 504, doi: 10.1086/171943

    work page doi:10.1086/171943 1992

  67. [68]

    Spoon, H. W. W., Armus, L., Cami, J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 184, doi: 10.1086/422813

    work page doi:10.1086/422813 2004

  68. [69]

    K., Heckman T

    Strickland, D. K., & Heckman, T. M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2030, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2030

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/2030 2009

  69. [70]

    2000, MNRAS, 314, 498, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03357.x

    Strickland, D. K., & Stevens, I. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 511, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03391.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03391.x 2000

  70. [71]

    , keywords =

    Su, R., Mahony, E. K., Gu, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5712, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad370

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad370 2023

  71. [72]

    Togi, A., & Smith, J. D. T. 2016, ApJ, 830, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/18 Van De Putte, D., Peeters, E., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554991

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/18 2016

  72. [73]

    L., Ishikawa, Y., et al

    Vayner, A., Zakamska, N. L., Ishikawa, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace784

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace784 2023

  73. [74]

    , keywords =

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 2005

  74. [75]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0121-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0121-9 2020

  75. [76]

    Veilleux, S., Rupke, D. S. N., Kim, D. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 628, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/628

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/628 2009

  76. [77]

    , keywords =

    Veilleux, S., Mel´ endez, M., Sturm, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/27 2013

  77. [78]

    , keywords =

    Veilleux, S., Liu, W., Vayner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace10f 2023

  78. [79]

    E., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  79. [80]

    , keywords =

    Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., & Umemura, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/136 2012

  80. [81]

    Khan, S. A. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 416, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21214.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21214.x 2012

Showing first 80 references.