Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

GLOW I: Comprehensive Measurements of Gas-Rich, Star-Forming, Low-Mass Galaxies in the Nearby Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that for nearby gas-rich dwarf galaxies, stellar masses derived from 3.6 micron infrared imaging with a single adopted mass-to-light ratio agree within uncertainties with masses from Hubble color-magnitude-diagram…

desk verdict A careful, genuinely useful atlas of 37 nearby dwarfs; the headline mass agreement is real but validates only the matched HST apertures, not the extrapolated total masses that Paper II depends on. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07659 v1 pith:FGWSLN6W submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Kristen B. W. McQuinn , O. Grace Telford , Roger Cohen , Liese van Zee , Laura C. Hunter , Madison Smith , Evan D. Skillman , Benjamin Williams
show 7 more authors
John M. Cannon Joseph Burchett Danielle A. Berg Julianne J. Dalcanton Andrew E. Dolphin Suchindram Dasgupta Avery Kiihne
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords chemicalenrichmentstellarpopulationsdwarfirregulargalaxiesinterstellaratomicgascircumgalacticmediumgalaxyenvironmentsmassmeasurementHIspatialdistribution
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 assembles a uniform atlas of 37 gas-rich, star-forming, low-mass galaxies within about 6 Mpc, combining 21-centimeter, Hubble, Spitzer 3.6 micron, and ground-based optical data. It argues that stellar masses from infrared light with a single adopted mass-to-light ratio agree within uncertainties with masses from resolved-star color-magnitude-diagram fitting in 84% of the sample, whatever stellar library is used. It also maps, for the first time, how much neutral hydrogen sits inside each stellar scale length, showing that most galaxies have 75% of their HI within 4.4 scale lengths while the most gas-rich systems extend to 10-30 scale lengths. These calibrated masses and gas distributions are the scale-setting inputs for the GLOW project's galaxy-by-galaxy accounting of oxygen production, retention, and loss, which is the reason a broad reader should care.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adopted stellar mass-to-light ratio at 3.6 microns, $\Upsilon_{*,3.6\,\mu\mathrm{m}}=0.47\,M_\odot/L_\odot$, inherited from the Bell et al. (2003) population synthesis models through McGaugh and Schombert (2014) and applied to total fluxes extrapolated from exponential surface-brightness fits. Against this, the CMD-fitting machinery reconstructs star formation histories and age-metallicity relations from Hubble photometry using the match code (Dolphin 2002) with two stellar libraries, PARSEC and MIST, a Kroupa IMF, a binary fraction of 0.35, and a gas recycling fraction of $R=0.43$. The third piece is the HI radial profiling: moment-0 maps from VLA and ATCA data, re-binned in annuli of 1.1 stellar scale lengths out to extreme radii, producing the cumulative HI flux curves and the 4.4-scale-length enrichment-radius criterion used for the oxygen accounting.

What would settle it

A reader could test the mass system by deriving CMD masses from Hubble imaging deep enough to reach below the oldest main-sequence turnoff for the eight galaxies with extended HI and comparing the ratio $M_{*,3.6\,\mu\mathrm{m,total}}/M_{*,\mathrm{CMD}}$; if that ratio departs systematically from the sample-wide scaling, the constant mass-to-light-ratio assumption fails for the most gas-rich dwarfs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the total stellar mass of a low-mass galaxy can be obtained from its extrapolated 3.6 micron luminosity using one constant mass-to-light ratio, $\Upsilon_{*,3.6\,\mu\mathrm{m}}=0.47\,M_\odot/L_\odot$ (on a diet Salpeter IMF, converted to a Kroupa IMF by a factor 0.85). Checked against stellar masses reconstructed from Hubble color-magnitude diagrams with the PARSEC and MIST stellar libraries, the infrared masses agree within the quoted uncertainties for 84% of the sample; the mean offset is only 2% for PARSEC and 24% for MIST. The paper also reports the first mapping of HI flux as a function of 3.6 micron scale lengths, and on that basis treats the gas inside 4.4 scale lengths as chemically enriched while flagging eight galaxies, generally the most gas-rich ones, whose HI extends to 10-30 scale lengths and cannot be assumed fully enriched. The total infrared stellar masses are then used to scale the CMD-derived stellar oxygen content from the Hubble footprint to the whole galaxy, which is the step the companion oxygen census builds on.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that every galaxy produces 0.47 solar masses of stars per solar luminosity of 3.6 micron light and that the infrared flux extrapolated to infinity captures the full stellar mass; if that ratio shifts with a galaxy's age, metal content, or glowing giant-star population, the mass agreement and the scaling factors feeding the oxygen census would be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Total 3.6 micron masses can stand in for full-galaxy stellar masses where the Hubble footprint covers only part of the disk, with the CMD comparison quantifying the systematic uncertainty.
  • For the eight galaxies with more than 25% of their HI outside 4.4 scale lengths, only the inner gas is counted as chemically enriched in the oxygen budget, so gas-rich dwarfs receive an automatically larger correction.
  • The scaling factors between Hubble-footprint CMD masses and total infrared masses are direct inputs to the retained-oxygen calculation, meaning the metal-retention fractions reported in Paper II inherit this mass scale.
  • Uniform masses, gas fractions, oxygen abundances, and environment metrics allow the GLOW sample to be joined with studies of more massive galaxies, covering roughly five orders of magnitude in stellar mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant infrared mass-to-light ratio runs high for galaxies with strong young asymptotic giant branch (AGB) populations, then the most massive dwarfs here would have their oxygen production overestimated, steepening the inferred mass-metallicity relation.
  • The 4.4-scale-length cutoff is a pragmatic uniform enrichment radius; a sharper test would measure oxygen abundances in the outer HI disks of the eight extended systems, which currently have no such measurements.
  • The 24% systematic offset between the MIST-based and infrared masses suggests the choice of stellar library, not the photometry, may set the dominant systematic floor for the oxygen retention fractions in Paper II.
  • Because the integrated-light method is calibrated against resolved-star histories locally, the same calibration could be exported to more distant dwarfs where only infrared imaging exists, tying their masses to a CMD-calibrated nearby scale.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a uniformly processed multi-wavelength atlas of 37 gas-rich, star-forming, low-mass galaxies within ~6 Mpc, combining archival VLA 21-cm data, HST resolved-star imaging, Spitzer 3.6 micron imaging, and ground-based optical imaging with literature TRGB distances, direct-method oxygen abundances, and environment metrics. The authors derive structural parameters and scale lengths from surface-brightness fits, compute stellar masses both from 3.6 micron fluxes with an adopted mass-to-light ratio and from CMD-based star formation histories using PARSEC and MIST stellar libraries, and compare the two mass estimates in matched HST footprints. They also present cumulative HI flux profiles as a function of 3.6 micron scale lengths and use a 4.4-scale-length radius to define an "enrichment radius" for the HI that will feed into the GLOW oxygen census in Paper II. The central claims are that the 3.6 micron and CMD masses agree within uncertainties for 84% of the sample, and that the paper provides the first mapping of HI profiles as a function of structural parameters.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a valuable public data resource: a homogeneous set of structural parameters, stellar masses, SFHs, AMRs, HI masses, and environment measurements for a well-defined sample of nearby dwarfs, with the resolved-star CMD fits and two stellar libraries being a particular strength. The cross-check between two independent stellar mass estimators is a useful consistency test, and the cumulative HI profiles as a function of scale lengths are a potentially informative product for studies of gas enrichment and feedback. The paper is also clearly positioned as the observational foundation for a subsequent oxygen census, so the reliability of the adopted masses and the enrichment-radius assumption is of direct consequence. However, the validation of the mass scale is incomplete for exactly the galaxies where the extrapolation to total masses is largest, and the novelty of the HI mapping is not demonstrated against the existing literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 5, Table 5] The claim that the 3.6 micron based stellar masses are validated by agreement with CMD masses applies only within the HST footprints, but the scaling factors used to extrapolate to total masses (Table 5, columns 6-7) are largest for galaxies that are omitted from or excluded from this comparison. WLM (scaling factor ~12) and UGC 04483 are omitted because new HST data were unavailable, and UGCA 292 and UGC 08638 are flagged as low-surface-brightness outliers and excluded from the fits. Thus the 84% agreement is established for a subset that does not include the systems where the extrapolation from HST footprint to total galaxy is most uncertain. The statement in Section 4 that "the robust agreement observed between M*,3.6um;HST and M*,CMD provides evidence that using M*,3.6um;total to scale the CMD-based masses is appropriate and does not introduce a large systematic uncertainty or bias" is therefore not supported by the presented comparison. The authors should either restrict the claim to the matched footprints, provide additional validation of the radial M/L assumption (e.g., using the 3.6 um surface brightness profiles to test for color or mass-to-light gradients), or quantify how a radially varying M/L would change the scaling factors and the total masses used in Paper II.
  2. [Section 6.2, Table 7] The 4.4-scale-length enrichment radius is justified by the statement that "using the stellar catalogs from the HST imaging as a guide, we find the stellar components routinely extend to 4.4 scale lengths." However, for many galaxies in the sample the HST footprint does not cover the full stellar disk (as the paper itself emphasizes in Section 4 and Figure 4), so the HST stellar catalogs cannot establish the full radial extent of the stellar component. The 4.4-alpha cut directly determines the enriched HI masses listed in Table 7 (column 10) and will feed into the oxygen census in Paper II. The authors should justify the enrichment radius using the full 3.6 um surface brightness profiles (for example, the radius at which the profile reaches the sky background or a fixed surface brightness threshold) rather than the HST-based stellar catalogs, or explicitly quantify the sensitivity of the enriched HI mass to the choice of this radius.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6.2] The paper claims "the first mapping of the HI profiles as a function of structural parameters." This novelty claim is not substantiated with a literature search or comparison to existing surveys. Several previous programs, including VLA-ANGST (Ott et al. 2012) and LITTLE THINGS (Hunter et al. 2012), have produced resolved HI maps for nearby dwarfs and have related HI extents to stellar scale lengths. The authors should either demonstrate that the specific product presented here—cumulative HI flux as a function of 3.6 micron scale length, with the 4.4-alpha enrichment cut—has not been published before, or soften the claim to avoid an unsupported priority statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, footnote 16] The list of galaxies with HST fields of view larger than the stellar disks includes "NGC 4459" and "UGC 00683," neither of which appears in the sample in Table 2; these are likely typos for NGC 3738 and UGC 00685, respectively.
  2. [Section 4 title and Section 5] There are several typographical errors, including "STELLAR MASSES FROM FROM 3.6µm IMAGING" in the Section 4 title, "libaries" in Section 5, and misplaced spacing in compound words such as "Hiflux" and "Himass." A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Table 4 note and Table 7] The note to Table 4 contains the typo "magntiudes," and several rows in Table 7 appear garbled or implausible (e.g., NGC 0784, NGC 2366, and NGC 3109 show inclination values of 0 degrees and NGC 2366 shows 99 degrees, with the W50 and Vrot columns hard to parse). These entries should be reformatted and checked against the original measurements.
  4. [Section 4, Figure 5] The text states that masses agree within uncertainties for 84% of the sample, but it is not clear whether the two flagged outlier galaxies (UGCA 292, UGC 08638) are included in that percentage or only in the plotted fits; please specify the exact sample size used for the 84% statistic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stellar-mass cross-check is an independent comparison with an adopted, not fitted, mass-to-light ratio, and the self-citations are methodological or externally validated.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim—that stellar masses from 3.6 micron imaging with a constant mass-to-light ratio agree with CMD-based masses—is not circular. The adopted value Upsilon* = 0.47 is taken from Bell et al. (2003) via McGaugh and Schombert (2014), and is not fitted to the CMD masses; the comparison in Figure 5 is therefore a genuine cross-check between two independently derived mass estimates in matched HST footprints. The paper explicitly acknowledges the shared Padova stellar-evolution heritage between the adopted M/L calibration and the PARSEC library, correctly identifying a common systematic rather than concealing it; this weakens full independence but does not make the agreement a tautology. The scaling factors in Table 5, used to extrapolate CMD masses to total masses via the total 3.6 micron flux, are ratios built from the same adopted M/L and the surface-brightness extrapolation; the CMD comparison validates the within-footprint normalization, while any concern about M/L varying outside the HST footprint is an extrapolation and correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The HI flux versus scale-length mapping is an observational product, and the LZ/MZ comparisons are sanity checks against published relations for which the stellar masses are newly derived here. Self-citations (McQuinn et al. 2021, 2024; Cohen et al. 2024, submitted) are used for methodology, uncertainty conventions, and externally validated AMR comparisons, and none is load-bearing in the sense of forcing the paper's conclusions. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements rest on several adopted inputs from prior literature (TRGB distances, direct-method abundances, stellar evolution libraries, a constant mass-to-light ratio, and an assumed enrichment radius). No new physical entities are introduced. The mass-to-light ratio and the 4.4-scale-length cut are the most consequential hand-chosen parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Stellar mass-to-light ratio at 3.6 microns = 0.47 M_sun/L_sun (adopted)
    Adopted from Bell et al. (2003) via McGaugh and Schombert (2014) as a single constant for all 37 galaxies. Sets the absolute scale of all 3.6 micron stellar masses and the scaling factors in Table 5 (Section 4).
  • Recycling fraction R = 0.43
    Adopted from Vincenzo et al. (2016) for a Kroupa IMF and used to convert the total mass formed in the CMD SFHs to present-day stellar mass (Section 4). A 5% metallicity dependence is ignored.
  • Assumed disk thickness q0 = 0.4
    Used in Equation 4 to correct 21 cm line widths for inclination when estimating rotation velocities (Section 6.3). Influences the potential well estimates used for retention arguments.
  • Enrichment radius cut = 4.4 scale lengths
    The paper defines the gas mass assumed to be chemically enriched as the HI within 4.4 3.6 micron scale lengths (Section 6.2, Table 7). The choice is based on the sample's own stellar extent and is applied uniformly without a formal uncertainty.
  • Binary fraction in CMD fitting = 0.35
    Assumed in MATCH fits (Section 5.2) with a flat mass ratio distribution. Affects the SFH and the CMD-based stellar masses, though solutions are checked against two stellar libraries.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TRGB distances and direct-method oxygen abundances from the literature are accurate and on a common scale.
    All distances (Table 2) are taken from the Extragalactic Distance Database and abundances from the cited compilations, with no re-derivation in this paper. Systematic errors in these inputs propagate into masses, HI masses, and oxygen content.
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution libraries PARSEC and MIST, along with the MATCH CMD-fitting code, recover true SFHs and AMRs for low-metallicity dwarf galaxies.
    Section 5.2 relies on these models to convert CMDs into mass and metallicity histories; the paper validates against WLM, LMC, and SMC in prior work but does not prove model correctness for the full sample.
  • ad hoc to paper A single constant 3.6 micron mass-to-light ratio applies across the sample.
    Section 4 explicitly adopts Upsilon=0.47 for all galaxies and assigns 0.12 dex uncertainty; the authors acknowledge it is a simplification and note AGB-related trends at high mass.
  • ad hoc to paper HI within 4.4 scale lengths is uniformly chemically enriched, while HI beyond is not.
    Section 6.2 applies this cut to compute the enriched gas mass; the paper argues it from the typical 75% enclosed-flux level but provides no direct chemical abundance measurements at large radii.
  • domain assumption Foreground and background contamination removal and surface brightness extrapolation to infinity recover the true total 3.6 micron flux.
    Section 3.1 describes visual and statistical source excision and curve-of-growth extrapolation; two low-surface-brightness galaxies (UGCA 292, UGC 08638) are flagged as higher-uncertainty, indicating this is not uniformly secure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLOW I: Comprehensive Measurements of Gas-Rich, Star-Forming, Low-Mass Galaxies in the Nearby Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGWSLN6W

@misc{pith2026260807659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLOW I: Comprehensive Measurements of Gas-Rich, Star-Forming, Low-Mass Galaxies in the Nearby Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGWSLN6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07659}
}
read the original abstract

Gas-rich, star-forming, low-mass galaxies in the nearby universe are powerful laboratories for studying baryonic physics in detail including: stellar mass assembly, stellar feedback, chemical enrichment, and the interplay of the interstellar medium with star formation. Investigating these disparate yet interconnected processes requires data obtained by myriad observatories. Here, we present a comprehensive atlas of uniformly processed data on 37 low-mass galaxies within 6 Mpc. The atlas includes archival data on (i) the HI from the Very Large Array observatory; (ii) resolved stars from Hubble Space Telescope optical imaging; (iii) Spitzer Space Telescope 3.6 micron imaging; and (iv) optical imaging from ground-based telescopes. We also compile measurements of (i) tip-of-the-red-giant-branch (TRGB) distances to the galaxies; (ii) direct method gas-phase oxygen abundances and nitrogen to oxygen abundance ratios; (iii) constraints on the local environment around each galaxy; and (iv) other measurements from the literature. We supplement the data with new observations where needed to complete the measurements for all galaxies in the sample. From these data, we find good agreement between stellar masses measured from color-magnitude diagrams and those estimated from 3.6 micron imaging by assuming a mass-to-light ratio. We also provide the first mapping of the HI profiles as a function of structural parameters. These data sets and measurements are the foundation for the Galaxies Losing Oxygen via Winds (GLOW) project whose main aim is to characterize the star formation - chemical enrichment cycle of low-mass galaxies by measuring the production, distribution, and retention of oxygen on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: The GLOW galaxies span 6.5 < log(Mass/M⊙) <9.5 in both stars and gas. Bottom panel: The galaxies have a range of MHI /M∗ ratios but all are gas-rich and actively star-forming, enabling robust gas-phase oxygen abundances to be measured from their Hii regions. As expected for actively star-forming systems, the galaxies are gas-rich. The majority have gas-to-star ra￾tios typical of dwarfs: 0.5 ≲ MHI /M∗ ≲ 4.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LZ relation, MZ relation, and the log of the ni￾trogen-to-oxygen abundances as a function of oxygen abun￾dance for the GLOW sample. Points are color-coded by the log of their MHI /M∗ ratios. Values of M∗ are based on the total 3.6µm fluxes and adopting a mass-to-light ratio (see §4). Best fitting lines (thicker line) and realizations within 1σ confidence intervals (thinner lines) are shown for the LZ and MZ relation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: Total 3.6µm magnitudes as a function of scale length α. Diagonal lines present lines of constant surface brightness µ = −10, −8, −6 mag per ′′2 , from top to bottom, assuming the mean sample distance of 3.3 Mpc. The general trend is that larger galaxies are also brighter and more massive, as expected. Bottom panel: Comparison of the ratios of B, R, and 3.6µm scale lengths based on the cleaned images. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HST footprints overlaid on 15′× 15′ Digital Sky Survey (DSS) images on two galaxies, UGC 09240 and NGC 6789, showing there is a range in areal coverage in the HST data. For the first system, the HST imaging provides excellent coverage of the main stellar disk whereas, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of stellar masses and their relative change based on the 3.6µm fluxes and assuming a M/L ratio with those derived from the CMD-fitting using the PARSEC models (top two panels) and MIST models (bottom two pan￾els) in matched fields of view. For the mass compa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative CMDs of the sample reaching depths below the red clump (UGC 9240; left) and ∼2 mag below the TRGB (UGC08638; middle). The right panel re-plots UGC 09240 with labels identifying populations in the CMD in different stages of stellar evolution (MS: main seq…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative SFHs and AMRs of the sample derived from the CMDs shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The SFHs for the GLOW sample colored coded by stellar mass (top panel), Hi mass (middle panel) and each galaxy’s AMR (bottom panel). A solid black line of constant star formation is overplotted for comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: compares the best-fitting present-day [M/H] values from the CMD from both the PARSEC and MIST models with the spectroscopically measured gas-phase oxygen abundances. While the stellar and gas metal￾licities trace different elements and slightly different timescales, th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The percent of the Hi flux as a function of scale lengths color-coded by MHI /M∗ ratios. The top panel shows the full extent of the Hi on the x-axis while the bottom panel zooms in on the first 5 scale lengths. The vertical black lines marks 4.4 scale lengths and the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: presents histograms of the four metrics for the sample. The top panel shows Θ1 and Θ5 where it is clear that the GLOW sample spans a range of envi￾ronment, but that the majority of galaxies are relatively isolated (i.e., have negative Θ values). Quantitatively, the me…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HST footprints overlaid on DSS images on a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. B. COLOR-MAGNITUDE DIAGRAMS OF GLOW GALAXIES Figures 16−19 present an atlas of the HST optical CMDs for the sample. The F814W magnitudes are shown on the y-axis for all galaxies; the bluer filt…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HST footprints overlaid on DSS images on a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. REFERENCES Ai, M., Zhu, M., Xu, J.-l., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2011 Angl´es-Alc´azar, D., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., Kereˇs, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: HST footprints overlaid on DSS images on a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. UGCA281 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: HST footprints overlaid on DSS images on a subsample of the GLOW galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CMDs of a subsample of the GLOW galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: CMDs of a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan,…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: CMDs of a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. Croxall, K. V., van Zee, L., Lee, H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 723, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/723 Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 Dale, D. A., Gil de…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CMDs of a subsample of the GLOW galaxies. Dolphin, A. E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x Dolphin, A. E. 2012, ApJ, 751, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/60 Dolphin, A. E. 2013, ApJ, 775, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/76 Dom´ınguez-Guzm´a…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: SFHs and AMRs for a subset of the GLOW sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FHs and AMRs for a subset of the GLOW sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FHs and AMRs for a subset of the GLOW sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FHs and AMRs for a subset of the GLOW sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2011 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Ai, M., Zhu, M., Xu, J.-l., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2011 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2011 2023

  2. [2]

    2004, AJ, 128, 1465, doi: 10.1086/382836

    Aparicio, A., & Gallart, C. 2004, AJ, 128, 1465, doi: 10.1086/382836

    doi:10.1086/382836 2004

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  4. [4]

    K., & Klein, U

    Bajaja, E., Huchtmeier, W. K., & Klein, U. 1994, A&A, 285, 385

    1994

  5. [5]

    N., & Karachentsev, I

    Begum, A., Chengalur, J. N., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2005, A&A, 433, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500026

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500026 2005

  6. [6]

    F., McIntosh, D

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

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  7. [7]

    A., Skillman, E

    Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/98

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/98 2012

  8. [8]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 33, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000331

    Bonnarel, F., Fernique, P., Bienaym´ e, O., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 33, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000331

    doi:10.1051/aas:2000331 2000

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    A., McQuinn, K

    Breneman, J. A., McQuinn, K. B. W., Menchaca, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.09248. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09248 GLOW: Paper I31 UGC05666 UGC05139 NGC0625 UGC08024 NGC4449 UGC08638 NGC4068 MCG9-20-131 UGC00685 UGC08201 NGC3738 NGC0784 Figure 14.HST footprints ...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  3. [12]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    P., et al

    Cignoni, M., Sabbi, E., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/76

    2015 doi

  6. [15]

    E., McQuinn, K

    Cohen, R. E., McQuinn, K. B. W., Murray, C. E., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd5

    doi

  7. [16]

    E., McQuinn, K

    Cohen, R. E., McQuinn, K. B. W., Murray, C. E., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 975, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a6

    doi

  8. [17]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Fisher, J. R., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 1938, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1938 34McQuinn et al. 0 2 F555W - F814W 20 22 24 26 28 F814W IC2574 0 2 F555W - F814W 20 22 24 26 28 F814W UGC05139 0 2 F555W - F814W 18 20 22 24 26 28 F814W NGC625 0 2 F606W...

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    V., van Zee, L., Lee, H., et al

    Croxall, K. V., van Zee, L., Lee, H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 723, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/723

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    A., Gil de Paz, A., Gordon, K

    Dale, D. A., Gil de Paz, A., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 863, doi: 10.1086/510362

    2007 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Cohen, S

    Dale, D. A., Cohen, S. A., Johnson, L. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 517, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/517 de Vaucouleurs, G., & Freeman, K. C. 1972, Vistas in Astronomy, 14, 163, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(72)90026-8

    2009 doi

  13. [22]

    C., & Skillman, E

    Dohm-Palmer, R. C., & Skillman, E. D. 2002, AJ, 123, 1433, doi: 10.1086/339182

    2002 doi

  14. [23]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  15. [24]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630 GLOW: Paper I35 0 2 F606W - F814W 18 20 22 24 26 28 F814W UGCA281 Figure 19.CMDs of a subsample of the GLOW galaxies

    2000 doi

  16. [25]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x

    2002

  17. [26]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2012, ApJ, 751, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/60

    2012 doi

  18. [27]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2013, ApJ, 775, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/76 Dom ´ ınguez-Guzm´ an, G., Rodr ´ ıguez, M., Garc ´ ıa-Rojas, J.,

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2974

    Esteban, C., & Toribio San Cipriano, L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2974

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    T., Dale, D

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306

    2007 doi

  21. [30]

    Ekta, B., & Chengalur, J. N. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1238, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16756.x Garc ´ ıa-Benito, R., & P´ erez-Montero, E. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 406, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20885.x

    2010

  22. [31]

    Gentile, G., Salucci, P., Klein, U., & Granato, G. L. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11283.x

    2007

  23. [32]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    Gonzaga, S. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    2012

  24. [33]

    W., Driver, S

    Graham, A. W., Driver, S. P., Petrosian, V., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1535, doi: 10.1086/444475

    2005 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad307b

    Hamanowicz, A., Tchernyshyov, K., Roman-Duval, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad307b

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    A., Hunter, D

    Herrmann, K. A., Hunter, D. A., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2013, AJ, 146, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/104 Hidalgo-G´ amez, A. M., Masegosa, J., & Olofsson, K. 2001, A&A, 369, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010179

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    L., Dowell, J., Haynes, M

    Hoffman, G. L., Dowell, J., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2019, AJ, 157, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14f6

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    E., Roberts, M

    Hogg, D. E., Roberts, M. S., Haynes, M. P., & Maddalena, R. J. 2007, AJ, 134, 1046, doi: 10.1086/520766

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    K., & Richter, O.-G

    Huchtmeier, W. K., & Richter, O.-G. 1989, A&A, 210, 1

    1989

  30. [39]

    A., & Elmegreen, B

    Hunter, D. A., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2006, ApJS, 162, 49, doi: 10.1086/498096

    2006 doi

  31. [40]

    C., van Zee, L., Cohen, R

    Hunter, L. C., van Zee, L., Cohen, R. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.19573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.19573

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    C., van Zee, L., McQuinn, K

    Hunter, L. C., van Zee, L., McQuinn, K. B. W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aced8e

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    C., van Zee, L., McQuinn, K

    Hunter, L. C., van Zee, L., McQuinn, K. B. W., Garner, R., & Dolphin, A. E. 2022, AJ, 163, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4d2c

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    Straka, L. A. 2017, ApJL, 850, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Makarov, D

    Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, AJ, 145, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/101

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    C., Tamblyn, P., & Congdon, C

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Tamblyn, P., & Congdon, C. E. 1994, ApJ, 435, 22, doi: 10.1086/174790

    1994 doi

  37. [46]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Skillman, E. D. 1996, ApJ, 471, 211, doi: 10.1086/177964

    1996 doi

  38. [47]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Skillman, E. D. 1997, ApJ, 489, 636, doi: 10.1086/304830

    1997 doi

  39. [48]

    S., Wang, J., Kamphuis, P., et al

    Koribalski, B. S., Wang, J., Kamphuis, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty479

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  41. [50]

    D., & Venn, K

    Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., & Venn, K. A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 813, doi: 10.1086/500568

    2006 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Kilborn, V

    Lutz, K. A., Kilborn, V. A., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty387 Mac Low, M., & Ferrara, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 142, doi: 10.1086/306832 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Posti, L., Fraternali, F., Adams, E. A. K., & Oosterloo, T. 2021, A&A, 647, A76, ...

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Engelbracht, C

    Marble, A. R., Engelbracht, C. W., van Zee, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 506, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/506 36McQuinn et al. 510 Age (Gyr) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fraction of Stellar Mass LEOA 510 Age (Gyr) 510 Age (Gyr) 1.5 1.0 0.5 Ave. Stellar [M/H] PARSEC MIST 510 Age (Gyr) 0....

    2010 doi

  44. [53]

    S., & Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 77

    2014

  45. [54]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Mitchell, N. P., & Skillman, E. D. 2015a, ApJS, 218, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/29

    doi

  46. [55]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/48

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    Mitchell, N. P. 2015b, ApJ, 808, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/109

    doi

  48. [57]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 297, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/297

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A., et al. 2015c, ApJL, 815, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/L17

    doi

  50. [59]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A., et al. 2015d, ApJ, 812, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/158

    doi

  51. [60]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7447

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Telidevara, A. K., Fuson, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac03ae

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., B. Newman, M. J., Savino, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1105

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/144

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    F., Dalcanton, J

    Melbourne, J., Williams, B. F., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/47 Mu˜ noz-Mateos, J. C., Sheth, K., Regan, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/3

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    2016, ApJL, 824, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L26

    Obreschkow, D., Glazebrook, K., Kilborn, V., & Lutz, K. 2016, ApJL, 824, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L26

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    Kennicutt, R. C. 2008, AJ, 136, 2761, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2761

    2008 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Warren, S

    Ott, J., Stilp, A. M., Warren, S. R., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/123

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    S., Werk, J

    Peeples, M. S., Werk, J. K., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/54

    2014 doi

  60. [69]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/791

    Peimbert, A., & Peimbert, M. 2010, ApJ, 724, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/791

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    P., Ball, C

    Peng, B., Haynes, M. P., Ball, C. J., & Jones, M. G. 2023, ApJ, 950, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb51

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    2006, A&A, 454, 759, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064883

    Pohlen, M., & Trujillo, I. 2006, A&A, 454, 759, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064883

    2006 doi

  63. [72]

    T., Megeath, S

    Reach, W. T., Megeath, S. T., Cohen, M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 978, doi: 10.1086/432670

    2005 doi

  64. [73]

    E., van Zee, L., Barnes, K

    Richards, E. E., van Zee, L., Barnes, K. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty514

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    B., Tchernyshyov, K., et al

    Roman-Duval, J., Jenkins, E. B., Tchernyshyov, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7713

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    2024, A&A, 691, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450106

    Sacchi, E., Bellazzini, M., Annibali, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450106

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  68. [77]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3223

    Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3223

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    D., Kennicutt, R

    Skillman, E. D., Kennicutt, R. C., & Hodge, P. W. 1989, ApJ, 347, 875, doi: 10.1086/168178

    1989 doi

  70. [79]

    D., Hidalgo, S

    Skillman, E. D., Hidalgo, S. L., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/44

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    D., Monelli, M., Weisz, D

    Skillman, E. D., Monelli, M., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c5

    2017 doi

  72. [81]

    M., Haynes, M

    Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Kent, B. R. 2005, ApJS, 160, 149, doi: 10.1086/431550 Stasi´ nska, G., Comte, G., & Vigroux, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 352

    2005 doi

  73. [82]

    R., Haynes, R

    Staveley-Smith, L., Kim, S., Calabretta, M. R., Haynes, R. F., & Kesteven, M. J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 87, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06146.x

    2003

  74. [83]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    2014 doi

  75. [84]

    K., Wilde, M

    Tchernyshyov, K., Werk, J. K., Wilde, M. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac450c

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    G., Dalcanton, J

    Telford, O. G., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab701c

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    G., Werk, J

    Telford, O. G., Werk, J. K., Dalcanton, J. J., & Williams, B. F. 2019, ApJ, 877, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b3f

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    B., Rizzi, L., Dolphin, A

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 729, doi: 10.1086/505466

    2006 doi

  80. [89]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 van der Hulst, J. M., Terlouw, J. P., Begeman, K. G.,

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    Zwitser, W., & Roelfsema, P. R. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, ed. D. M. Worrall, C. Biemesderfer, & J. Barnes, 131 van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N. B. 200...

    1992 doi

  82. [91]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 4183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2598

    Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., Belfiore, F., & Maiolino, R. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2598

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    D., et al

    Zheng, Y., Faerman, Y., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe6b

    2024 doi

  84. [93]

    2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 329, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/4/004

    Zhu, Y.-N., Wu, H., Li, H.-N., & Cao, C. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 329, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/4/004

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.