Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Cloud-scale elemental abundance variations and the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor in M31

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A survey of 294 H II regions in the Andromeda galaxy finds statistically significant, roughly 0.06-dex scatter in oxygen abundance around the radial gradient, implying the gas is not chemically homogeneous at cloud scales.

desk verdict A solid, honest observational paper with a valuable new H II region sample; the new two-point correlation and alpha'(CO) comparison are worth having, but the intrinsic-scatter claim needs a robustness check against ionization-parameter and extinction systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16069 v1 pith:J7GRJJYI submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.GA

Chloe Bosomworth , Jan Forbrich , Charles J. Lada , Nelson Caldwell , Chiaki Kobayashi , Sébastien Viaene This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords M31HIIregionsoxygenabundancemetallicityscatterstrong-linediagnosticstwo-pointcorrelationfunctionCO-to-dustconversionfactorgasmixing
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 interstellar medium of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, is not chemically uniform at the scale of individual H II regions. Using 294 regions observed with MMT/Hectospec, it derives oxygen and nitrogen abundances from PG16 strong-line diagnostics, finds a shallow oxygen radial gradient and a steeper nitrogen gradient, and measures a residual scatter around the oxygen gradient of 0.06 dex that exceeds the nominal measurement uncertainty of about 0.01 dex. The authors interpret this scatter as intrinsic and stochastic, and use a two-point correlation function to show that the gas is well-mixed on sub-kpc scales but less so on kpc scales. Combining the same spectra with SMA dust-continuum and CO observations of giant molecular clouds, the paper finds no trend between the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor and oxygen abundance across the sampled high-metallicity range. If correct, these results would mean that cloud-scale chemical inhomogeneity is a real, measurable property of a large disk galaxy, with consequences for how metallicity maps are used to trace star formation and merging history.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three observational tools working together. The first is the PG16 strong-line diagnostics (named for Pilyugin & Grebel 2016), a set of 3D calibrations using line ratios N2, R2, R3 and S2, applied only to the upper (high-metallicity) branch; these convert emission-line measurements into oxygen and nitrogen abundances while being less sensitive to ionization-parameter fluctuations than simpler one-dimensional calibrations. The second is the two-point correlation function of residual oxygen abundance as a function of H II region separation, computed after subtracting the radial gradient and compared against a randomized sample using bootstrap resampling. The third is the dust-based conversion factor $\alpha'(^{12}\mathrm{CO})$, the ratio of dust mass to CO luminosity for individual giant molecular clouds measured with the SMA, which avoids assuming a gas-to-dust ratio. These tools allow the paper to separate radial trends, local scatter, mixing scale, and the metallicity dependence of CO-based mass estimates.

What would settle it

Measure direct electron-temperature-based oxygen abundances for a representative sample of the same H II regions using the auroral $[\mathrm{O\,III}]\,\lambda4363$ line: if the residual scatter around the radial gradient drops to about 0.02 dex, the 0.06 dex spread is calibration rather than intrinsic to M31's gas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that after subtracting a fitted radial oxygen gradient from H II region abundances in M31, the remaining scatter has a standard deviation of about 0.06 dex, roughly six times the typical measurement uncertainty, and is statistically significant. This scatter appears at all galactocentric radii and azimuths, with no systematic azimuthal trend; about 30% of regions deviate by more than one $\sigma$ and outliers reach several $\sigma$. The paper reads this as evidence that M31's interstellar medium is not chemically homogeneous at cloud scales, and it connects the reduced-abundance side of the scatter to pristine gas possibly brought in by a collision with M32 200--800 Myr ago, and the enhanced-abundance side to recent enrichment by star formation and supernovae. As a secondary result, the two-point correlation function of residual oxygen abundance stays correlated to larger separations than a randomized sample, indicating sub-kpc homogeneity but kpc-scale inhomogeneity, and the oxygen abundance does not correlate with the $\alpha'(^{12}\mathrm{CO})$ conversion factor within the sampled metallicity range.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the method used to turn emission-line brightness ratios into oxygen abundances is accurate to better than 0.06 dex when comparing one star-forming region with another; if calibration systematics, ionization-parameter sensitivity, or residual extinction errors add comparable scatter, the claim that the 0.06 dex spread is intrinsic would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single radial gradient cannot describe M31's chemical state: cloud-to-cloud abundance differences of roughly 0.06 dex must be part of the galaxy's metallicity budget.
  • The steeper nitrogen gradient means N/O rises toward M31's center, matching chemical-evolution simulations in which nitrogen enrichment is delayed relative to oxygen.
  • M31's gas is homogenized on scales below about 0.6 kpc but decorrelates by about 1.2 kpc, so studies that use one abundance per large region will miss real structure.
  • Within the sampled metallicity range, the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor is effectively constant at about $0.06\,M_\odot\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2})^{-1}$, so metallicity corrections are not needed for these clouds.
  • The residual scatter sets a floor for interpreting M31 abundance measurements: any claim of enrichment or dilution at a specific location must be judged against the cloud-scale noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, if the 0.06 dex scatter is intrinsic, then simulations of disk galaxies should reproduce not just the mean radial gradient but the scatter itself; a targeted comparison with the observed residual-abundance distribution would test whether current mixing prescriptions are too efficient.
  • Going beyond the paper, the null $\alpha'(^{12}\mathrm{CO})$-metallicity trend could be a cancellation: at high metallicity, a higher gas-to-dust ratio and a higher CO-to-H$_2$ ratio may offset each other, and a larger sample spanning $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})<8.5$ would separate the two effects.
  • Going beyond the paper, the proposed M32 collision makes a kinematic prediction: reduced-abundance H II regions should trace gas with distinct velocities or dust properties; matching the residual map to merger simulations would test this scenario.
  • Going beyond the paper, the measured sub-kpc correlation scale offers a benchmark for turbulent-mixing simulations; reproducing it would support the exponential decline in mixing speed that the paper invokes.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents MMT/Hectospec optical spectroscopy of 294 H II regions in M31, classifies the sources on a BPT diagram, and derives oxygen and nitrogen abundances using the PG16 R- and S-calibrations and the Z94 R23 calibration. From these abundances the authors measure a shallow radial oxygen gradient, a steeper nitrogen gradient, and, after subtracting the radial trend, a residual oxygen-abundance scatter with standard deviation 0.06 dex. They also compute a two-point correlation function of the residuals and compare it with a shuffled control sample, and they combine their abundances with SMA-based alpha'(12CO) values from Viaene et al. (2021) to test the metallicity dependence of the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor, finding no significant trend within their sample.

Significance. If the residual-scatter claim holds, this is a valuable cloud-scale measurement of chemical (in)homogeneity in a large disk galaxy, complementary to PHANGS studies and relevant to models of ISM mixing and the recent M31-M32 interaction. The manuscript's strengths include a large and consistently analyzed sample of 294 H II regions, repeat-observation-based error estimates, bootstrap-resampled gradient fits, and a direct observational test of alpha'(CO) against metallicity using matched GMC/H II region data. The paper is also appropriately cautious about the absolute calibration uncertainty of strong-line diagnostics while relying on published evidence that relative abundances are more robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Section 3.4] The central claim that the 0.06 dex residual scatter is intrinsic and exceeds measurement uncertainties compares the observed scatter with the ~0.01 dex repeat-observation dispersion. That dispersion estimates random errors only and does not include source-to-source systematic differences in ionization parameter, residual extinction, or the PG16 S-calibration response. The paper notes sensitivity to ionization-parameter fluctuations (citing Jin et al. 2023) but does not test whether Δ(O/H) correlates with excitation-sensitive ratios such as [OIII]/[OII] (O32) or with A_V. A spatially coherent systematic pattern, for example along the Ring of Fire or in the outer disk, would be indistinguishable from genuine abundance substructure. I recommend adding a correlation or partial-correlation analysis of Δ(O/H) with O32 and A_V, and stating an adopted systematic floor for relative abundances, before the 'intrinsic scatter' claim can be considered established.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Figure 9] The two-point correlation function is interpreted as evidence for sub-kpc homogeneity and larger-scale inhomogeneity. The random-shuffle comparison removes correlations in the abundance field but preserves any spatial structure in the measurement systematics; if A_V or excitation conditions are spatially correlated, the same test would recover correlation even in the absence of abundance variations. This issue is the two-point analogue of the scatter issue above. Please repeat the analysis on residuals that have been regressed on O32 and A_V, or otherwise argue explicitly that the PG16 S-calibration is insensitive to these quantities at the 0.06 dex level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'This method provided accurate enough wavelength values so that the exact line-midpoints count be determined via a Gaussian fit' contains a typo: 'count' should be 'can'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'approx. 30% of H II regions have |Δ(O/H)| > 1σ and 20% of those outliers have |Δ(O/H)| > 2σ' is statistically awkward; if 30% of the sample exceeds 1σ, then 20% of those outliers corresponds to ~6% of the full sample, which is somewhat above the Gaussian expectation of ~5%. Please report the percentages relative to the full sample for clarity.
  3. [Section 4.1] The position-angle split into 'PA < 180 deg' and 'PA > 180 deg' should state explicitly how the position angle is measured (which axis and direction) so that the two disk halves are reproducible.
  4. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'from which the previously mentioned SMA targets were selected' is a sentence fragment; please join it to the preceding sentence.
  5. [Section 4.4 and Figure 10] The caption of Figure 10 should state how many distinct GMCs are plotted and how many H II regions are associated with each GMC, since some GMCs have multiple H II regions and this affects the effective independence of the sample used for the alpha'(CO) trend test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: abundances, gradients, scatter, and the alpha'(CO) comparison are derived from independent external calibrations and SMA data; overlapping-author citations to Viaene et al. (2021) and Sanders et al. (2012) are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. H II region oxygen and nitrogen abundances come from externally calibrated strong-line diagnostics (Pilyugin & Grebel 2016; Zaritsky et al. 1994), applied to new MMT/Hectospec spectra; the radial gradients and residual scatter are measured from those abundances, not imposed by the diagnostics. The central '0.06 dex scatter exceeds measurement uncertainties' claim compares the observed residual dispersion around the fitted gradient to repeat-observation uncertainties; whether those uncertainties capture the systematic floor of the PG16 S-calibration is a calibration/correctness concern, not an input-output equivalence. The alpha'(12CO) values are taken from Viaene et al. (2021) and Forbrich et al. (2020), which have overlapping authorship with this paper, but those measurements rest on independent SMA dust-continuum and CO observations and are not fitted to the abundances derived here; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Comparisons with Sanders et al. (2012), which shares a coauthor, are validation against an earlier published catalog and do not carry the argument. The paper also explicitly notes its assumptions and limitations, such as the single-plane deprojection assumption, the approximate RoF placement, and the fact that alpha'(CO) does not account for the gas-to-dust ratio. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The apparent concern that unquantified PG16 systematics could mimic the claimed scatter is a legitimate scientific risk but not circularity.

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

No new physical entities or ad hoc fitted parameters are introduced. The central results depend on standard nebular physics (extinction correction), empirically calibrated strong-line diagnostics (PG16, Z94), and the geometrical assumption that M31's disk is a single inclined plane. The alpha'(CO) values come from a self-cited prior SMA study, but they are independent measurements, not derived from the present analysis.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination with electron temperature 10^4 K and density 10^2 cm^-3 yields intrinsic Halpha/Hbeta = 2.86.
    Used in Section 3.2 to compute extinction corrections from the Balmer decrement.
  • domain assumption Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction curve with Rv = 3.1 applies along M31 sightlines.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 to convert the Balmer decrement to visual extinction A_V and to correct all line fluxes.
  • domain assumption PG16 strong-line calibrations give accurate relative oxygen and nitrogen abundances for upper-branch (high-metallicity) H II regions, with systematic errors small compared to the 0.06 dex scatter.
    This is the foundation for all abundance values in Sections 3.4 and 4.2; the paper cites Ho et al. (2017) for the robustness of relative abundances but does not test this directly for M31.
  • domain assumption M31 H II regions lie in a single plane with the adopted center, position angle, and inclination from Haud (1981) and Simien et al. (1979).
    Used in Section 4 to compute galactocentric radii and physical separations; the paper notes that separations may be underestimated if the plane assumption is imperfect.
  • domain assumption The oxygen abundance of an H II region is representative of the metallicity of its associated giant molecular cloud.
    Required for the alpha'(12CO) versus O/H comparison in Section 4.4, where H II region metallicities are paired with SMA GMC measurements from Viaene et al. (2021).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cloud-scale elemental abundance variations and the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor in M31." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7GRJJYI

@misc{pith2026241216069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cloud-scale elemental abundance variations and the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor in M31},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7GRJJYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16069}
}
abstract

From a spectroscopic survey of candidate H II regions in the Andromeda galaxy (M31) with MMT/Hectospec, we have identified 294 H II regions using emission line ratios and calculated elemental abundances from strong-line diagnostics (values ranging from sub-solar to super-solar) producing both Oxygen and Nitrogen radial abundance gradients. The Oxygen gradient is relatively flat, while the Nitrogen gradient is significantly steeper, indicating a higher N/O ratio in M31's inner regions, consistent with recent simulations of galaxy chemical evolution. No strong evidence was found of systematic galaxy-scale trends beyond the radial gradient. After subtracting the radial gradient from abundance values, we find an apparently stochastic and statistically significant scatter of standard deviation 0.06 dex, which exceeds measurement uncertainties. One explanation includes a possible collision with M32 200 - 800 Myrs ago. Using the two-point correlation function of the Oxygen abundance, we find that, similar to other spiral galaxies, M31 is well-mixed on sub-kpc scales but less so on larger (kpc) scales, which could be a result of an exponential decrease in mixing speed with spatial scale, and the aforementioned recent merger. Finally, the MMT spectroscopy is complemented by a dust continuum and CO survey of individual Giant Molecular Clouds, conducted with the Submillimeter Array. By combining the MMT and SMA observations, we obtain a unique direct test of the Oxygen abundance dependence of the $\alpha^{\prime}(^{12}\mathrm{CO})$ factor which is crucial to convert CO emission to dust mass. Our results suggest that within our sample there is no trend of the $\alpha^{\prime}(^{12}\mathrm{CO})$ with Oxygen abundance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. H ii regions (red) and PNe (blue) are shown on the Spitzer MIPS Infrared 24 microns image (Gordon et al. 2006). We display the main RoF as defined by Gordon et al. (2006) as a black, dashed line. The 1 kpc scalebar represents this distance on-sky at the distance of M31 (780 kpc: Stanek & Garnavich 1998). These are the targets from which we obtained high-quality Hectospec spectra and were able to classify them using … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. H ii regions from our sample overplotted onto the Spitzer MIPS Infrared 24 microns image (Gordon et al. 2006), symbols are colored to values of AV. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Although we ultimately classified our sources using the Kniazev et al. (2008) classification, multiple classification dividers exist in literature (e.g. Kewley et al. 2001; Kauffmann et al. 2003; Stasińska et al. 2008) indicating that there is an uncertainty in H ii region classification when a source lies close to the defined boundary. Finally, we remove another 15 sources from our H ii region sample which have pre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Oxygen abundance (12 + log[O/H]) for H ii regions in M31 from the LEFT: PG16 R and S-calibrations RIGHT: Z94 diagnostics as a function of galactocentric radius (R kpc) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Oxygen abundance (12 + log[O/H]) for H ii regions in M31 from the PG16 S-calibration as a function of azimuthal angle with 0 deg corresponding to the minor axis in the northern direction and moving in the clockwise direction. Sources which are located within the main R…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of Δ(O/H) (PG16 S-calibration) with galactocentric ra￾dius, with individual H ii regions shown in red and the mean values for bins of equal radial size (3 kpc) shown as blue circles. Bins are separated by 1.5 kpc and overlap by 50%. Sources located within the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-point correlation of metallicity for the PG16 strong-line diagnostics as a function of spatial scale (H ii regions separated by up to 10 kpc). In grey, we show the two-point correlation if the metallicity values are randomised i.e. metallicity and position within t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The variation of the CO-to-dust-mass conversion factor, 𝛼 ′ ( 12CO), with metallicity (O) for H ii regions with SMA detections reported by Viaene et al. (2021). Some GMCs have multiple associated H ii regions. Uncertainties in the S-calibration-calculated metallicitie…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaboldi M., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244258 , 666, a109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244258 2022

  2. [2]

    Arnett D., Chevalier R., 1996, @doi [Physics Today - PHYS TODAY] 10.1063/1.2807808 , 49

    doi:10.1063/1.2807808 1996

  3. [3]

    Arp H., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...139.1045A 139, 1045

    work page doi:10.1086/147844 1964

  4. [4]

    Azimlu M., Marciniak R., Barmby a., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/139 , 142, 139

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/139 2011

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/130766 , 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    S., Rood R

    Balser D. S., Rood R. T., Bania T. M., Anderson L. D., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/27 , 738, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/27 2011

  7. [7]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..151B 469, 151

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx789 2017

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya S., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935898 , 631, A56

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935898 2019

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Bhattacharya S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2343B 517, 2343

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    L., et al., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature05184 , 443, 832

    Block D. L., et al., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature05184 , 443, 832

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Wolfire M., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..207B 51, 207

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Cicone, C

    Bothwell M., Maiolino, R. Cicone, C. Peng, Y. Wagg, J. 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527918 , 595, A48

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Braun R., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...372...54B 372, 54

    1991 doi

  6. [15]

    A., Clayton G

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

    1989 doi

  7. [16]

    Astronomy / Astrophysics, University of Chicago Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HSGFThnbvkC

    Clayton D., 1983, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. Astronomy / Astrophysics, University of Chicago Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HSGFThnbvkC

    1983

  8. [17]

    J., McConnachie A

    Davidge T. J., McConnachie A. W., Fardal M. A., Fliri J., Valls-Gabaud D., Chapman S. C., Lewis G. F., Rich R. M., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/74 , 751, 74

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Price R., Wells L

    Devereux N. A., Price R., Wells L. A., Duric N., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....108.1667D 108, 1667

    1994 doi

  10. [19]

    Dierickx M., Blecha L., Loeb A., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/l38 , 788, L38

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    Earl N., et al., 2024, astropy/specutils: v1.16.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.13829659 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13829659

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Esteban C., García-Rojas J., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1168 , 478, 2315

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    Fabricant D., et al., 2005, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/497385 , 117, 1411

    2005 doi

  14. [23]

    Forbrich J., Lada C., Viaene S., Petitpas G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab68de , 890, 42

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    D., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..87G 638, L87

    Gordon K. D., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..87G 638, L87

    2006 doi

  16. [25]

    Grasha K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..118G 929, 118

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    Groves B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4902G 520, 4902

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    Haas M., Lemke D., Stickel M., Hippelein H., Kunkel M., Herbstmeier U., Mattila K., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...338L..33H 338, L33

    1998

  19. [28]

    J., et al., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...278L..59H 278, L59

    Habing H. J., et al., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...278L..59H 278, L59

    1984 doi

  20. [29]

    Haud U., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00687507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Ap&SS..76..477H 76, 477

    1981 doi

  21. [30]

    Henry R. B. C., Worthey G., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316403 , 111, 919

    1999 doi

  22. [31]

    Ho I.-T., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz649 , 485, 3569

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Ho I.-T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8460 , 846, 39

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..64H 618, A64

    Ho I. T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..64H 618, A64

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Nicholls D

    Jin Y., Sutherland R., Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acffb5 , 958, 179

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , 346, 1055

    2003

  27. [36]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/341326 , 142, 35

    2002 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Ellison S

    Kewley L. J., Ellison S. L., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/587500 , 681, 1183

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321545 , 556, 121

    2001 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Nicholls D

    Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 , 57, 511

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A..56K 671, A56

    Khoperskov S., Sivkova E., Saburova A., Vasiliev E., Shustov B., Minchev I., Walcher C. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A..56K 671, A56

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...58K 798, 58

    Kirk J. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...58K 798, 58

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    Y., Pustilnik S

    Kniazev A. Y., Pustilnik S. A., Zucker D. B., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12540.x , 384, 1045

    2008

  34. [43]

    I., Lugaro M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    Kobayashi C., Bhattacharya S., Arnaboldi M., Gerhard O., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..14K 956, L14

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Kewley L

    Kobulnicky H. A., Kewley L. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..240K 617, 240

    2004 doi

  37. [46]

    Kreckel K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...80K 887, 80

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    Kreckel K., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2743 , 499, 193

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/313233 , 123, 3

    1999 doi

  40. [49]

    F., Serrano A., Torres-Peimbert S., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....80..155L 80, 155

    Lequeux J., Peimbert M., Rayo J. F., Serrano A., Torres-Peimbert S., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....80..155L 80, 155

    1979

  41. [50]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..183L 805, 183

    Lewis A. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..183L 805, 183

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    Maiolino R., Mannucci F., 2019, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 , 27, 3

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Mannucci F., Cresci G., Maiolino R., Marconi A., Gnerucci A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.2115M 408, 2115

    2010

  44. [53]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A.114M 559, A114

    Marino R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A.114M 559, A114

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    Matteucci F., Franco J., Francois P., Treyer M.-A., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989RMxAA..18..145M 18, 145

    1989

  46. [55]

    G., Lee J

    Momcheva I. G., Lee J. C., Ly C., Salim S., Dale D. A., Ouchi M., Finn R., Ono Y., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/47 , 145, 47

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    Nagao T., Maiolino R., Marconi A., 2006, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065216 , 459, 85

    2006 doi

  48. [57]

    Gu\'elin, M

    Nieten C., Neininger, N. Gu\'elin, M. Ungerechts, H. Lucas, R. Berkhuijsen, E. M. Beck, R. Wielebinski, R. 2006, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035672 , 453, 459

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, University Science Books, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HgfrkDjBD98C

    Osterbrock D., Ferland G., 2006, Astrophysics Of Gas Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei. G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, University Science Books, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HgfrkDjBD98C

    2006

  50. [59]

    Pagel B. E. J., Edmunds M. G., Blackwell D. E., Chun M. S., Smith G., 1979, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95 , 189, 95

    1979 doi

  51. [60]

    I., Papadopoulos P

    Pelupessy F. I., Papadopoulos P. P., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/954 , 707, 954

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    Pettini M., Pagel B. E. J., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x , 348, L59

    2004

  53. [62]

    S., Grebel E

    Pilyugin L. S., Grebel E. K., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw238 , 457, 3678

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    S., Thuan T

    Pilyugin L. S., Thuan T. X., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/432408 , 631, 231

    2005 doi

  55. [64]

    S., V \' lchez J

    Pilyugin L. S., V \' lchez J. M., Thuan T. X., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1738 , 720, 1738

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

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

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

    1995 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527450 , 587, A70

    S\'anchez-Menguiano . L., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527450 , 587, A70

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    E., Caldwell N., McDowell J., Harding P., 2012, @doi [ ] https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/133 , 758, 133

    Sanders N. E., Caldwell N., McDowell J., Harding P., 2012, @doi [ ] https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/133 , 758, 133

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    C., Dullemond C

    Shetty R., Glover S. C., Dullemond C. P., Ostriker E. C., Harris A. I., Klessen R. S., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18937.x , 415, 3253

    2011

  60. [69]

    Simien F., Pellet A., Monnet G., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....72...12S 72, 12

    1979

  61. [70]

    Z., Garnavich P

    Stanek K. Z., Garnavich P. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...503L.131S 503, L131

    1998 doi

  62. [71]

    Stasińska G., et al., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00550.x , 391, L29

    2008

  63. [72]

    J., Zeippen C

    Storey P. J., Zeippen C. J., 2000, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03184.x , 312, 813

    2000

  64. [73]

    M., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980FCPh....5..287T 5, 287

    Tinsley B. M., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980FCPh....5..287T 5, 287

    1980 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    J., Petitpas G., Faesi C., 2021, @doi [ ] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abe629 , 912, 68

    Viaene S., Forbrich J., Lada C. J., Petitpas G., Faesi C., 2021, @doi [ ] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abe629 , 912, 68

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    Vincenzo F., Kobayashi C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..155V 478, 155

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    Vincenzo F., Kobayashi C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496...80V 496, 80

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    V., Balser D

    Wenger T. V., Balser D. S., Anderson L. D., Bania T. M., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53d3 , 887, 114

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1303W 509, 1303

    Williams T. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1303W 509, 1303

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Huchra J

    Zaritsky D., Kennicutt Robert C. J., Huchra J. P., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...420...87Z 420, 87

    1994 doi

  71. [80]

    A., Low M.-M

    de Avillez M. A., Low M.-M. M., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/344256 , 581, 1047

    2002 doi

Pith tools

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