Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Unveiling Electron Density Profile in Nearby Galaxies using SDSS MaNGA

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electron densities in nearby galaxy disks fall sharply with radius, from roughly 50-100 cm^-3 in the inner disk to 20-35 cm^-3 outside 1.5 effective radii, mapped with [S II] doublet ratios.

desk verdict The SFG electron density gradient is a solid, pipeline-independent result; the Non-SFG gradient is a survivor-bias candidate that the abstract overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13677 v2 pith:IE72G7L5 submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Shivam Burman , Sunil Malik , Suprit Singh , Yogesh Wadadekar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords electrondensity[SII]doubletratiointegralfieldspectroscopygalacticdisksradialgradientsFaradayrotationinterstellarmediumquiescentgalaxies
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

The paper aims to establish that the thermal electron density in galaxy disks is not a constant: it falls with galactocentric radius, and the gradient can be mapped directly from integral-field spectroscopy instead of assumed. Using [S II] $\lambda\lambda6716,6731$ ratios in 66 face-on galaxies (46 star-forming, 20 quiescent), the authors derive volume-weighted radial profiles in which average densities are $52.87\pm8.32$ cm$^{-3}$ (star-forming) and $99.39\pm24.37$ cm$^{-3}$ (quiescent) inside $r/R_e \le 1.5$, dropping to $20.92\pm4.2$ cm$^{-3}$ and $34.64\pm11.24$ cm$^{-3}$ outside. This matters because Faraday-rotation studies of galactic magnetic fields have typically assumed a homogeneous electron column; a measured radial profile changes how rotation measures are converted into field strengths. Translating the densities with a 1 kpc disk gives electron columns near $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ at about 14 kpc, while supporting the common $10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ approximation only for sightlines passing beyond roughly 20 kpc.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the [S II] $\lambda\lambda6716,6731$ flux ratio $R = s_1/s_2$, which depends on electron density through collisional excitation and de-excitation; because the two lines are close in wavelength, the ratio needs no dust correction. The paper converts $R$ to $n_e$ with $n_e = (cR - ab)/(a - R)$ using coefficients $a=0.4315$, $b=2107$, $c=627.1$ from its adopted atomic prescription [12]. Around this core, the machinery consists of masking negative-flux pixels, clipping ratio outliers by interquartile range, annular binning in two schemes (equal width and equal number of pixels), and volume-weighted co-addition across galaxies [36]. This chain turns thousands of per-spaxel line fluxes into average radial profiles with uncertainties, and then into column densities under an assumed disk thickness.

What would settle it

Stack the [S II] emission of the 53 rejected quiescent galaxies in the same annular bins and measure their mean outer-disk ratio; if the recovered density equals the inner-disk value, the Non-SFG gradient is a sample-selection artifact rather than a general result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quiescent and star-forming disks both show a measurable decrease of thermal electron density with radius, obtained from the collisionally excited [S II] doublet. For star-forming galaxies the gradient appears in both independent analysis pipelines with consistent normalization; for quiescent galaxies the two pipelines disagree, and the paper presents the primary-pipeline gradient while stating that quiescent galaxies need further investigation. Pixel-level flux ratios are converted to densities, then averaged in annular bins and co-added with survey volume weights to produce radial profiles and inner/outer-disk means. The corresponding column-density profile, under a constant 1 kpc disk thickness, is $\sim10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the outer disk near 14 kpc and declines further outward; at impact parameters beyond 20 kpc the integrated column is consistent with the $\sim10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ value that earlier magnetic-field studies assumed.

Load-bearing premise

The quiescent-galaxy gradient depends on the 20 galaxies that survived the flux-quality cut; if the 53 rejected quiescent galaxies simply have fainter or absent outer-disk [S II] emission, the reported drop toward the outskirts could be a selection effect rather than a property of quiescent disks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Faraday-rotation modeling can replace a constant electron column with a radially declining density, most affecting field estimates for sightlines through the inner disk ($r/R_e \lesssim 1.5$).
  • The long-used $\sim10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ electron column remains a reasonable approximation for quasar sightlines through the CGM and outskirts at impact parameters above about 20 kpc.
  • Outer-disk electron columns near $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ at roughly 14 kpc mean sightlines grazing the inner disk need a larger electron contribution than many earlier magnetic-field analyses assumed.
  • For star-forming galaxies the density gradient is stable across two independent reduction pipelines, while for quiescent galaxies the pipelines differ, leaving their gradient less settled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The radial decline probably tracks the decline of star-forming regions; separating H II regions from diffuse ionized gas would reveal whether the profile is set by bright nebulae or by the warm diffuse ISM.
  • The assumed constant 1 kpc disk thickness is a soft spot for the column-density claim; if disks flare, outer-disk columns would be higher, and edge-on integral-field measurements could measure the thickness profile directly.
  • Stacking the 53 rejected quiescent galaxies is an immediate, feasible test of whether their outer disks lack ionized gas or are simply too faint for per-pixel Gaussian fits.
  • Applying the same doublet-ratio method to inclined or edge-on galaxies would add a vertical dimension to these radial maps, useful for magnetohydrodynamic disk models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses [S II] λλ6716, 6731 doublet ratios to estimate spatially resolved electron densities in 66 face-on MaNGA galaxies (46 star-forming galaxies, 20 non-star-forming galaxies), using both MaNGA DAP and Pipe3D Gaussian fluxes. Azimuthally averaged, volume-weighted radial profiles are constructed with linear and non-linear binning, and inner/outer disk averages are reported at r/R_e = 1.5. The central claim is that both SFGs and Non-SFGs show radial electron density gradients, with DAP values for SFGs decreasing from 52.87 ± 8.32 cm^-3 to 20.92 ± 4.2 cm^-3 and for Non-SFGs from 99.39 ± 24.37 cm^-3 to 34.64 ± 11.24 cm^-3. The authors convert n_e to electron column density assuming a 1 kpc disk thickness, compare with [O II]-based estimates, cross-check with PyNeb, and discuss implications for Faraday rotation studies that assume constant electron column density.

Significance. If the gradients are real, this is a useful, directly applicable measurement: resolved n_e profiles of face-on galaxies would replace the constant-N_e assumption common in Faraday rotation analyses and provide a local anchor for redshift-dependent n_e studies. The paper has clear strengths: a deliberately homogeneous face-on sample to minimize projection effects, volume weighting following Wake et al., use of two independent pipelines (DAP and Pipe3D), two binning schemes, a PyNeb cross-check, and no free parameters fitted to the gradients themselves. The SFG gradient is credible because DAP and Pipe3D agree in both normalization and slope. However, the Non-SFG gradient, which is a headline result in the abstract, is not supported by the authors' own Pipe3D comparison and rests on a strongly selected 20-galaxy survivor sample; the significance of the paper therefore hinges on whether that claim is revised or robustly demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 2] The Non-SFG gradient is not corroborated by the cross-pipeline check. For DAP, the Non-SFG average density changes from 99.39 ± 24.37 cm^-3 (r/R_e ≤ 1.5) to 34.64 ± 11.24 cm^-3 (r/R_e > 1.5), but for Pipe3D the corresponding values are 69.22 ± 18.74 and 54.54 ± 12.56 cm^-3. The outer-region values differ by only about 1.2σ, and the Pipe3D inner-to-outer change is statistically consistent with a flat profile. Section 4 itself states that the electron density analysis for Non-SFGs requires further investigation. The abstract's assertion that both SFGs and Non-SFGs exhibit n_e gradients therefore overstates the result; the Non-SFG gradient should either be removed or explicitly qualified, or the DAP/Pipe3D discrepancy must be explained.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 3.2.1] The Non-SFG sample is heavily selected: 53 of 73 candidate Non-SFGs are removed because more than 30% of pixels in their radial bins have negative flux or low coverage, leaving only 20 galaxies. These survivors are, by construction, galaxies with relatively bright and spatially extended [S II] emission. If the removed galaxies have weak or absent outer-disk [S II], then the reported outer-disk density of 34.64 ± 11.24 cm^-3 reflects survivor bias rather than a general property of quiescent galaxies. The manuscript should compare the physical properties (sSFR, stellar mass, R_e, Hα extent, and [S II] signal-to-noise) of the removed and retained Non-SFGs and demonstrate quantitatively that the selection does not drive the claimed gradient. Without this, the Non-SFG result cannot support the general claim in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The text refers to the 'lower right panel' and 'lower left panel' for the Non-SFG profiles in Figs. 3 and 5, but the Non-SFG profiles are shown in the right-hand panels of those figures; the panel references should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says the authors use 'data products from both the MaNGA Data Analysis Pipeline (DAP)', but the comparison is between DAP and Pipe3D; 'both' is misleading because only one pipeline is named.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] Please state that the coefficients b and c carry units of cm^-3 and specify the allowed range of the ratio R for which the equation is used, since the text later clips R at the bounds.
  4. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (3.2)] The notation \bar{n}_{ew} is hard to parse; a clearer notation such as \bar{n}_{e,w} would help, and the meaning of the weight w_i should be restated immediately before the equation.
  5. [Section 4] The statement that the N_e estimates at impact parameters greater than 20 kpc confirm the 10^20 cm^-2 approximation used in previous studies relies on an extrapolation beyond the observed radial coverage of roughly 14 kpc; this extrapolation should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: n_e gradients are measured line-ratio diagnostics, not fitted outputs; the one self-referential consistency remark is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: n_e is computed pixel-by-pixel from observed [S II] doublet flux ratios using Eq. 3.1 with coefficients from the external Sanders et al. 2015 calibration and atomic data from Tayal and Zatsarinny 2010; the same data are cross-checked with PyNeb. No parameter is fitted to the radial averages, and the inner-to-outer values in Table 2 are weighted means of the measured maps. The SFG profile is reproduced with Pipe3D, while the paper itself flags that the Non-SFG analysis requires further investigation, which is a sample/robustness limitation rather than a circularity. The removal of 53 of 73 Non-SFGs affects representativeness of the quiescent sample, but that is a selection-bias concern, not a circular step. The only self-referential moment is the Discussion statement that the 10^20 cm^-2 column approximation used in earlier Faraday-rotation work is confirmed; that statement extrapolates the paper's own measured n_e profile under an assumed 1 kpc disk thickness, so it is an extrapolation rather than an independent test, but it is not load-bearing for the central gradient claim and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No self-definition, imported uniqueness, or ansatz-by-citation appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement uses a standard emission-line ratio with atomic coefficients taken from the literature; no new particles or physical mechanisms are introduced. The main unpaid inputs are the assumed slab geometry (1 kpc thickness), the atomic calibration, and the implicit assumption that the selected sample represents the target galaxy population after heavy filtering.

free parameters (3)
  • Disk thickness L = 1 kpc (50% uncertainty assumed)
    Assumed in Section 3.2.3 to convert n_e to N_e. The column density scale is directly proportional to this value, and no measurement of the emitting path length is made.
  • Inner/outer disk boundary r/R_e = 1.5 = 1.5 effective radii
    Chosen in Section 3.3 to define the two radial averages quoted in the abstract and conclusions. The gradient claim is a two-bin comparison; a different boundary would change the averages.
  • IQR clipping thresholds and ratio bounds = 1.5*IQR; R_SII in (0.4315, 1.449]
    Used in Section 3.2.1 to remove outliers and clip out-of-range ratios. These choices change which pixels enter the density maps, especially in the outer disk where the ratio approaches the low-density asymptotic limit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The [S II] doublet ratio R = s1/s2 maps to n_e via Eq. 3.1 with coefficients a=0.4315, b=2107, c=627.1 from Sanders et al. (2015).
    Central diagnostic; assumes the atomic data and the functional form are accurate and applicable to the observed ISM.
  • domain assumption The measured [S II] emissivity traces the same thermal electron population that contributes to Faraday rotation in the disk.
    Used implicitly when translating n_e profiles into N_e for magnetic field applications; [S II] is weighted toward H II regions and DIG, not necessarily the full warm ionized medium.
  • domain assumption The disk is a uniform slab of thickness 1 kpc with no vertical density gradient or flaring, and the filling factor is either unity (main text) or given by the literature relation in Appendix C.
    Needed for the N_e conversion; the authors state flaring would not change the order of magnitude but could change precise values.
  • domain assumption The standard MaNGA volume weights (Wake et al. 2017) are applicable to the face-on selected subsample.
    Used in Eq. 3.3; the authors argue face-on selection introduces no inclination-dependent extinction bias.
  • ad hoc to paper Removed pixels/bins with negative fluxes or low coverage reflect sky subtraction issues rather than astrophysical regions.
    This assumption underlies the masking that removed 53 of 73 Non-SFGs; if those galaxies have genuinely weak or absent [S II] emission, the surviving sample is biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling Electron Density Profile in Nearby Galaxies using SDSS MaNGA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE72G7L5

@misc{pith2026250513677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling Electron Density Profile in Nearby Galaxies using SDSS MaNGA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE72G7L5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13677}
}
abstract

Most observational studies of galactic-scale magnetic fields using Faraday rotation rely on estimates of thermal electron densities in galaxies and their radial variations. However, the spatial distribution of electrons in the interstellar medium (ISM) is not clearly known. In this study, we propose and utilize collision-excited doublet emission line ratios of [S II] $\lambda\lambda$ 6716, 6731 $\r{A}$ to estimate the electron densities ($n_e$). To map their distribution in the galaxies, we employ IFU spectroscopic observations from the SDSS MaNGA survey, utilising data products from both the MaNGA Data Analysis Pipeline (DAP). We present a spatially resolved analysis of $66$ face-on galaxies (inclination, $i \leq 15^\circ$), including $46$ star-forming galaxies (SFGs) and $20$ Non-SFGs. Azimuthally averaged radial profiles of $n_e$ are obtained. We found that both SFGs and Non-SFGs exhibit $n_e$ gradients, with higher densities of $n_e$(S II) = $52.87 \pm 8.32$ cm$^{-3}$ and $99.39 \pm 24.37$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively, in the inner disk region (r/R$_e$ $\leq$ 1.5), which decreases to $n_e$(S II) = $20.92 \pm 4.2$ cm$^{-3}$ in SFGs and $34.64 \pm 11.24$ cm$^{-3}$ in Non-SFGs, in the outer disk region (r/R$_e$ $>$ 1.5). We have also analysed these sources with Pipe3D fluxes. We translated $n_e$ to electron column densities ($N_e$) by assuming a typical disk of thickness 1 kpc and note that $N_e \sim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ at $\sim$14 kpc in the disk outer region. We have also discussed the profiles obtained using [O II] $\lambda\lambda$ 3726, 3729 $\r{A}$ doublet. These electron density estimates at different radii provide valuable insights for resolving ambiguities in current and future studies of magnetic fields in galaxies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Osterbrock and G

    D. Osterbrock and G. Ferland,Astrophysics Of Gas Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, University Science Books (2006). 5http://www.astropy.org – 19 –

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Snell and S.E

    R.L. Snell and S.E. Kurtz,Fundamentals of Radio Astronomy: Astrophysics (Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics)(2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Bernet, F

    M.L. Bernet, F. Miniati, S.J. Lilly, P.P. Kronberg and M. Dessauges-Zavadsky,Strong magnetic fields in normal galaxies at high redshift,Nature454(2008) 302 – 304

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Bernet, F

    M.L. Bernet, F. Miniati and S.J. Lilly,THE EXTENT OF MAGNETIC FIELDS AROUND GALAXIES OUT TO z∼1,ApJL772(2013) L28

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Malik, H

    S. Malik, H. Chand and T.R. Seshadri,Role of intervening mg ii absorbers on the rotation measure and fractional polarization of the background quasars,The Astrophysical Journal890(2020) 132

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Burman, P

    S. Burman, P. Sharma, S. Malik and S. Singh,Investigation of the radial profile of galactic magnetic fields using rotation measure of background quasars,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024(2024) 063

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Cordes and T.J.W

    J.M. Cordes and T.J.W. Lazio,NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations,arXiv e-prints(2002) astro [astro-ph/0207156]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Yao, R.N

    J.M. Yao, R.N. Manchester and N. Wang,A new electron-density model for estimation of pulsar and frb distances,The Astrophysical Journal835(2017) 29

    work page 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Petroff, J.W.T

    E. Petroff, J.W.T. Hessels and D.R. Lorimer,Fast radio bursts,The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 27(2019) 4

    2019

  2. [10]

    Steidel, G.C

    C.C. Steidel, G.C. Rudie, A.L. Strom, M. Pettini, N.A. Reddy, A.E. Shapley et al.,Strong nebular line ratios in the spectra of z∼2–3 star forming galaxies: First results from kbss-mosfire,The Astrophysical Journal795(2014) 165

    2014

  3. [11]

    Shimakawa, T

    R. Shimakawa, T. Kodama, C.C. Steidel, K.-i. Tadaki, I. Tanaka, A.L. Strom et al.,Correlation between star formation activity and electron density of ionized gas at z=2.5,MNRAS451(2015) 1284 [1411.1408]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sanders, A.E

    R.L. Sanders, A.E. Shapley, M. Kriek, N.A. Reddy, W.R. Freeman, A.L. Coil et al.,The mosdef survey: Electron density and ionization parameter at z∼2.3,The Astrophysical Journal816(2015) 23

    2015

  5. [13]

    Davies, N.M.F

    R.L. Davies, N.M.F. Schreiber, R. Genzel, T.T. Shimizu, R.I. Davies, A. Schruba et al.,The kmos3d survey: Investigating the origin of the elevated electron densities in star-forming galaxies at 1⩽z⩽3, The Astrophysical Journal909(2021) 78

    2021

  6. [14]

    Kaasinen, F

    M. Kaasinen, F. Bian, B. Groves, L.J. Kewley and A. Gupta,The COSMOS-[O II] survey: evolution of electron density with star formation rate,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465(2016) 3220

    2016

  7. [15]

    Kashino, J.D

    D. Kashino, J.D. Silverman, D. Sanders, J.S. Kartaltepe, E. Daddi, A. Renzini et al.,The fmos-cosmos survey of star-forming galaxies at z∼1.6. iv. excitation state and chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium,The Astrophysical Journal835(2017) 88

    2017

  8. [16]

    Harshan, A

    A. Harshan, A. Gupta, K.-V . Tran, L.Y . Alcorn, T. Yuan, G.G. Kacprzak et al.,Zfire: Measuring electron density with [o ii] as a function of environment at z=1.62,The Astrophysical Journal892(2020) 77

    2020

  9. [17]

    Herrera-Camus, A

    R. Herrera-Camus, A. Bolatto, J.D. Smith, B. Draine, E. Pellegrini, M. Wolfire et al.,The ionized gas in nearby galaxies as traced by the n ii 122 and 205µm transitions,The Astrophysical Journal826(2016) 175

    2016

  10. [18]

    Kashino and A.K

    D. Kashino and A.K. Inoue,Disentangling the physical parameters of gaseous nebulae and galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486(2019) 1053

    2019

  11. [19]

    D.R. Law, X. Ji, F. Belfiore, M.A. Bershady, M. Cappellari, K.B. Westfall et al.,Sdss-iv manga: Refining strong line diagnostic classifications using spatially resolved gas dynamics,The Astrophysical Journal915(2021) 35. – 20 –

    2021

  12. [20]

    Belfiore, F., Santoro, F., Groves, B., Schinnerer, E., Kreckel, K., Glover, S. C. O. et al.,A tale of two digs: The relative role of hii regions and low-mass hot evolved stars in powering the diffuse ionised gas (dig) in phangs–muse galaxies,A&A659(2022) A26

    2022

  13. [21]

    Espinosa-Ponce, S.F

    C. Espinosa-Ponce, S.F. S ´anchez, C. Morisset, J.K. Barrera-Ballesteros, L. Galbany, R. Garc´ıa-Benito et al.,H ii regions in califa survey: Ii. the relation between their physical properties and galaxy evolution,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society512(2022) 3436

    2022

  14. [22]

    F., Kennicutt, R

    S ´anchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., van de Ven, G., V´ılchez, J. M., Wisotzki, L. et al., Califa, the calar alto legacy integral field area survey - i. survey presentation,A&A538(2012) A8

    2012

  15. [23]

    Espinosa-Ponce, S.F

    C. Espinosa-Ponce, S.F. S ´anchez, C. Morisset, J.K. Barrera-Ballesteros, L. Galbany, R. Garc´ıa-Benito et al.,H ii regions in the califa survey: I. catalogue presentation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society494(2020) 1622

    2020

  16. [24]

    Barrera-Ballesteros, S

    J. Barrera-Ballesteros, S. S ´anchez, C. Espinosa-Ponce, C. L´opez-Cob´a, L. Carigi, A.Z. Lugo-Aranda et al.,Sdss-iv manga: The radial distribution of physical properties within galaxies in the nearby universe,Revista mexicana de astronom´ ıa y astrof´ ısica59(2023) 213

    2023

  17. [25]

    Bundy, M.A

    K. Bundy, M.A. Bershady, D.R. Law, R. Yan, N. Drory, N. MacDonald et al.,Overview of the SDSS-IV MaNGA Survey: Mapping nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory,ApJ798(2015) 7 [1412.1482]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. Yan, C. Tremonti, M.A. Bershady, D.R. Law, D.J. Schlegel, K. Bundy et al.,Sdss-iv/manga: Spectrophotometric calibration technique,The Astronomical Journal151(2015) 8

    2015

  19. [27]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J. et al.,Planck 2015 results - xiii. cosmological parameters,A&A594(2016) A13

    2016

  20. [28]

    Cappellari, E

    M. Cappellari, E. Emsellem, D. Krajnovi ´c, R.M. McDermid, N. Scott, G.A. Verdoes Kleijn et al.,The atlas3d project – i. a volume-limited sample of 260 nearby early-type galaxies: science goals and selection criteria,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society413(2011) 813

    2011

  21. [29]

    Croom, J.S

    S.M. Croom, J.S. Lawrence, J. Bland-Hawthorn, J.J. Bryant, L. Fogarty, S. Richards et al.,The Sydney-AAO Multi-object Integral field spectrograph,MNRAS421(2012) 872 [1112.3367]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Brodie, A.J

    J.P. Brodie, A.J. Romanowsky, J. Strader, D.A. Forbes, C. Foster, Z.G. Jennings et al.,The sages legacy unifying globulars and galaxies survey (sluggs): Sample definition, methods, and initial results,The Astrophysical Journal796(2014) 52

    2014

  23. [31]

    C.-P. Ma, J.E. Greene, N. McConnell, R. Janish, J.P. Blakeslee, J. Thomas et al.,The massive survey. i. a volume-limited integral-field spectroscopic study of the most massive early-type galaxies within 108 mpc,The Astrophysical Journal795(2014) 158

    2014

  24. [32]

    Gunn, W.A

    J.E. Gunn, W.A. Siegmund, E.J. Mannery, R.E. Owen, C.L. Hull, R.F. Leger et al.,The 2.5 m Telescope of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,AJ131(2006) 2332 [astro-ph/0602326]

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Blanton, M.A

    M.R. Blanton, M.A. Bershady, B. Abolfathi, F.D. Albareti, C.A. Prieto, A. Almeida et al.,Sloan digital sky survey iv: Mapping the milky way, nearby galaxies, and the distant universe,The Astronomical Journal154(2017) 28

    2017

  26. [34]

    Smee, J.E

    S.A. Smee, J.E. Gunn, A. Uomoto, N. Roe, D. Schlegel, C.M. Rockosi et al.,The Multi-object, Fiber-fed Spectrographs for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey,AJ146(2013) 32 [1208.2233]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D.R. Law, R. Yan, M.A. Bershady, K. Bundy, B. Cherinka, N. Drory et al.,Observing strategy for the sdss-iv/manga ifu galaxy survey,The Astronomical Journal150(2015) 19

    2015

  28. [36]

    D.A. Wake, K. Bundy, A.M. Diamond-Stanic, R. Yan, M.R. Blanton, M.A. Bershady et al.,The sdss-iv manga sample: Design, optimization, and usage considerations,The Astronomical Journal154(2017) 86. – 21 –

    2017

  29. [37]

    Westfall, M

    K.B. Westfall, M. Cappellari, M.A. Bershady, K. Bundy, F. Belfiore, X. Ji et al.,The data analysis pipeline for the sdss-iv manga ifu galaxy survey: Overview,The Astronomical Journal158(2019) 231

    2019

  30. [38]

    Belfiore, K.B

    F. Belfiore, K.B. Westfall, A. Schaefer, M. Cappellari, X. Ji, M.A. Bershady et al.,The data analysis pipeline for the sdss-iv manga ifu galaxy survey: Emission-line modeling,The Astronomical Journal 158(2019) 160

    2019

  31. [39]

    Lacerda, S

    E.A. Lacerda, S. S ´anchez, A. Mej´ıa-Narv´aez, A. Camps-Fari˜na, C. Espinosa-Ponce, J. Barrera-Ballesteros et al.,pyfit3d and pypipe3d — the new version of the integral field spectroscopy data analysis pipeline,New Astronomy97(2022) 101895

    2022

  32. [40]

    S ´anchez, J.K

    S.F. S ´anchez, J.K. Barrera-Ballesteros, E. Lacerda, A. Mej´ıa-Narvaez, A. Camps-Fari˜na, G. Bruzual et al.,Sdss-iv manga: pypipe3d analysis release for 10,000 galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series262(2022) 36

    2022

  33. [41]

    Zhang, R

    K. Zhang, R. Yan, K. Bundy, M. Bershady, L.M. Haffner, R. Walterbos et al.,Sdss-iv manga: the impact of diffuse ionized gas on emission-line ratios, interpretation of diagnostic diagrams and gas metallicity measurements,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society466(2016) 3217

    2016

  34. [42]

    Poetrodjojo, B

    H. Poetrodjojo, B. Groves, L.J. Kewley, A.M. Medling, S.M. Sweet, J. van de Sande et al.,The sami galaxy survey: Spatially resolved metallicity and ionization mapping,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society479(2018) 5235

    2018

  35. [43]

    Biswas and Y

    P. Biswas and Y . Wadadekar,Structure and kinematics of star-forming elliptical galaxies in sdss-manga, The Astrophysical Journal970(2024) 83

    2024

  36. [44]

    Salim,Green valley galaxies,Serbian Astronomical Journal(2014) 1–14

    S. Salim,Green valley galaxies,Serbian Astronomical Journal(2014) 1–14

    2014

  37. [45]

    K. Xu, Q. Gu, S. Lu, X. Ge, M. Xiao and E. Contini,Star-forming S0 galaxies in the SDSS-IV MaNGA survey,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509(2021) 1237

    2021

  38. [46]

    Dopita and R

    M. Dopita and R. Sutherland,Astrophysics of the Diffuse Universe, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Kewley, D.C

    L.J. Kewley, D.C. Nicholls, R. Sutherland, J.R. Rigby, A. Acharya, M.A. Dopita et al.,Theoretical ism pressure and electron density diagnostics for local and high-redshift galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal880(2019) 16

    2019

  40. [48]

    Fischer and G

    C.F. Fischer and G. Tachiev,Mchf/mcdhf collection, version 2, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Tayal and O

    S.S. Tayal and O. Zatsarinny,Breit–pauli transition probabilities and electron excitation collision strengths for singly ionized sulfur,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series188(2010) 32

    2010

  42. [50]

    Werk, J.X

    J.K. Werk, J.X. Prochaska, J. Tumlinson, M.S. Peeples, T.M. Tripp, A.J. Fox et al.,The cos-halos survey: Physical conditions and baryonic mass in the low-redshift circumgalactic medium,The Astrophysical Journal792(2014) 8

    2014

  43. [51]

    Tumlinson, M.S

    J. Tumlinson, M.S. Peeples and J.K. Werk,The circumgalactic medium,Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics55(2017) 389

    2017

  44. [52]

    Isobe, M

    Y . Isobe, M. Ouchi, K. Nakajima, Y . Harikane, Y . Ono, Y . Xu et al.,Redshift evolution of electron density in the interstellar medium at z∼0–9 uncovered with jwst/nirspec spectra and line-spread function determinations,The Astrophysical Journal956(2023) 139

    2023

  45. [53]

    and Shaw, R

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C. and Shaw, R. A.,Pyneb: a new tool for analyzing emission lines - i. code description and validation of results,A&A573(2015) A42

    2015

  46. [54]

    Morisset, V

    C. Morisset, V . Luridiana, J. Garc´ıa-Rojas, V . G´omez-Llanos, M. Bautista and C. Mendoza,Atomic data assessment with pyneb,Atoms8(2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Phillips,Constraints upon density gradients in evolved hii regions,New Astronomy13(2008) 60

    J. Phillips,Constraints upon density gradients in evolved hii regions,New Astronomy13(2008) 60

    2008

  48. [56]

    Kronberg, M.L

    P.P. Kronberg, M.L. Bernet, F. Miniati, S.J. Lilly, M.B. Short and D.M. Higdon,A global probe of cosmic magnetic fields to high redshifts,The Astrophysical Journal676(2008) 70. – 22 –

    2008

  49. [57]

    G., Pandey, V

    Jeli ´c, V ., de Bruyn, A. G., Pandey, V . N., Mevius, M., Haverkorn, M., Brentjens, M. A. et al.,Linear polarization structures in lofar observations of the interstellar medium in the 3c196 field,A&A583 (2015) A137

    2015

  50. [58]

    Berkhuijsen, D

    E.M. Berkhuijsen, D. Mitra and P. Mueller,Filling factors and scale heights of the diffuse ionized gas in the Milky Way,Astronomische Nachrichten327(2006) 82 [astro-ph/0511172]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Robitaille, E.J

    Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom, E. Bray et al., Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy,A&A558(2013) A33 [1307.6212]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Price-Whelan, B.M

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sip ˝ocz, H.M. G¨unther, P.L. Lim, S.M. Crawford et al.,The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package,AJ 156(2018) 123 [1801.02634]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Price-Whelan, P.L

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim, N. Earl, N. Starkman, L. Bradley et al.,The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package,apj935(2022) 167 [2206.14220]. – 23 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.