Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS): survey overview and the result of global mass-metallicity relation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dwarf galaxies continue the mass–metallicity relation to 10^8 Msun

desk verdict DGIS is a genuine survey resource; the SFR-null result in §8.2 is not established by the current analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04943 v1 pith:63NJ447C submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.GA

Xin Li , Yong Shi , Fuyan Bian , Xiaoling Yu , Zhiyuan Zheng , Songlin Li , Yanmei Chen , Qiusheng Gu
show 6 more authors
Junfeng Wang Shude Mao Xiangdong Li Hongxin Zhang Kai Zhu Zhiyu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:dwarffundamentalparametersmethods:dataanalysisISM:abundancesintegralfieldspectroscopymass-metallicityrelationstarformationrate
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

Low-mass dwarf galaxies are the building blocks of larger galaxies, yet their chemical enrichment has been hard to measure because earlier observations often covered only a few bright regions. This paper presents the Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS), 65 dwarf galaxies with stellar masses between $10^{6}$ and $10^{9}$ solar masses, observed with integral-field spectrographs at 10 to 100 parsec resolution, and reports its first result: the global gas-phase metallicity of these dwarfs traces the same mass–metallicity relation as more massive galaxies, extended smoothly down to about $10^{8}$ solar masses. The paper also finds that including star formation rate does not reduce the scatter in this relation, so at the low-mass end stellar mass rather than star-forming activity appears to be the main driver of metal content. Comparing with a similar long-slit sample, the integrated IFS measurements come out about 0.1 dex higher in metallicity, indicating an aperture effect in earlier dwarf mass–metallicity studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the global stacked spectrum: for each galaxy, all spaxels with continuum signal-to-noise above 0.5 within one effective radius are co-added, producing one integrated spectrum that captures most of the galaxy's star-forming regions rather than a few H II regions. From these spectra, dust-corrected emission-line ratios feed multiple strong-line metallicity calibrations, and the resulting $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ values are plotted against stellar mass and star formation rate. The one-effective-radius aperture is what makes the claimed ~0.1 dex offset relative to long-slit data interpretable as an aperture effect.

What would settle it

Measure electron-temperature metallicities from the [O III] 4363 auroral line for the same DGIS galaxies and compare with the strong-line values: if the direct-$T_e$ points flatten the MZR at low mass or show a clear SFR dependence below $10^{8.5}$ solar masses, the paper's two central claims would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass–metallicity relation does not break or flatten at the low-mass end: DGIS dwarf galaxies lie on the extrapolation of the relation established for higher-mass galaxies, with metallicities continuing to decline with decreasing stellar mass down to about $10^{8}$ solar masses for most calibrations. The second part of the claim is negative: when star formation rate is added through the combination $\mu_\alpha = \log M_\ast - \alpha \log \mathrm{SFR}$, the dispersion about the relation does not decrease for any calibration, so there is no significant fundamental metallicity relation at these masses. The paper further claims that aperture effects are present in long-slit studies of dwarfs: applying the same metallicity recipes to a comparable long-slit sample gives metallicities about 0.1 dex lower than the DGIS IFS measurements, which cover the galaxy out to one effective radius.

Load-bearing premise

The strong-line metallicity recipes are assumed to give accurate metallicities at $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ below about 8.3; if they are biased in this low-metallicity regime, the shape of the low-mass MZR and the absence of an SFR dependence would both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the MZR extrapolation is real, dwarf galaxies at $10^8$ to $10^9$ solar masses are not a separate chemical population; their metal content is set by the same processes that set the high-mass relation.
  • A null star-formation-rate dependence at low mass means adding SFR does not tighten the mass–metallicity relation, so low-mass galaxy models cannot rely on SFR-regulated metal outflows to explain the scatter.
  • The ~0.1 dex aperture offset implies that MZR normalizations from long-slit or fiber surveys of dwarfs are systematically low, with consequences for comparisons to high-redshift dwarf galaxies.
  • Combined with higher-mass samples, the DGIS points anchor a continuous MZR from $10^8$ to $10^{11}$ solar masses against which JWST-era measurements of early dwarf galaxies can be compared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to measure electron-temperature ($T_e$) metallicities for the same DGIS galaxies; this would show whether the calibration-dependent slope differences are real or an artifact of strong-line recipes.
  • If the null SFR dependence survives direct-$T_e$ metallicities, the standard fundamental-metallicity-relation picture at higher masses, where SFR reduces scatter, would need a mass-dependent explanation rather than a single continuous relation.
  • The aperture-effect offset predicts that re-observing the comparison long-slit sample galaxies with integral-field spectroscopy would raise their measured metallicities by about 0.1 dex, a testable extension of the paper's comparison.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS), a sample of 65 dwarf galaxies with stellar masses below 10^9 M_sun selected from the Spitzer Local Volume Legacy Survey and observed with VLT/MUSE and ANU-2.3m/WiFeS. The authors describe the sample selection, observations, data reduction, and high-level data products, and then present the first science result: integrated gas-phase metallicities for about 30 galaxies, measured with eight strong-line calibrations, are used to construct a mass-metallicity relation (MZR) and to test whether the scatter is reduced by including star formation rate (SFR) through a fundamental metallicity relation (FMR). The paper claims that the DGIS dwarfs lie close to the extrapolation of the higher-mass MZR, that there is evidence for an aperture effect relative to long-slit studies, and that SFR does not significantly reduce the MZR scatter.

Significance. The DGIS survey addresses a genuine gap: existing IFS surveys of dwarf galaxies generally lack the combination of high spatial resolution, deep exposure, and sample size that DGIS provides. The data reduction description, especially the MUSE post-processing and flux calibration, is detailed and will be useful to the community. If the scientific claims are confirmed, the paper would provide an important anchor for the dwarf-galaxy end of the MZR and for the debated role of SFR at low masses. The use of multiple metallicity calibrations and the effort to compare with long-slit samples are strengths. However, the current analysis does not yet support the two central scientific claims: the SFR-scatter null result is not quantified against the dominant systematic errors, and the aperture-effect comparison is not a controlled test. The survey component is strong, but the science results need additional work before they can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§8.2, Eq. (13), Fig. 6, Table 3] The conclusion that SFR does not reduce the MZR scatter is not supported by the analysis as presented. The dispersion variations in Fig. 6 span only about 0.03 dex, whereas the systematic errors of the eight metallicity calibrations are listed as 0.14–0.29 dex in the last row of Table 3 and the paper states in §7(11) that these systematic errors dominate the metallicity uncertainties. No bootstrap uncertainties or significance tests are reported for the dispersion curves, and the value of α that minimizes the dispersion differs among calibrations (D16: 0.42; M13 N2 and PMC09 O3N2: 1.0). The test therefore cannot distinguish a true absence of SFR dependence from a measurement that is entirely dominated by calibration noise; a sensitivity analysis or a resampling procedure that propagates the calibration systematics is needed before the null claim can be made.
  2. [§8.1, Fig. 5] The claim that the DGIS MZR follows the extrapolation of the higher-mass relation is partly circular as presented, because the red dashed lines in Fig. 5 are polynomial fits to a sample that includes the DGIS points themselves, combined with SAMI and Berg et al. (2012) data. These fitted lines therefore cannot independently validate the extrapolation claim. In addition, only about 30 of the 65 DGIS galaxies have metallicity measurements, and only about five of those lie below 10^8 M_sun, so the low-mass end is weakly constrained. Please report the offset and scatter of the DGIS points relative to the SAMI-only extrapolations (the black solid lines) separately, and state how many DGIS objects are used in each stellar mass bin of the comparison.
  3. [§9 and §8.1] The claimed ~0.1 dex aperture effect is not established by the current comparison. The DGIS metallicities are integrated IFS measurements within 1 R_e, while the Berg et al. (2012) values are long-slit measurements of individual H II regions in a different set of dwarf galaxies. The offset could therefore be caused by sample selection, SFR distribution, spatial sampling, or other physical differences between the two samples. To support the statement that an aperture effect exists, the authors should perform a controlled test—for example, extracting synthetic long-slit or aperture-matched measurements from the DGIS datacubes—or at least demonstrate that the DGIS and Berg samples are statistically matched in stellar mass, SFR, and other relevant properties.
  4. [Abstract and §9] The general statement that the DGIS MZR 'nearly follows the extrapolation from the higher mass end' is not uniformly supported by Fig. 5, because the shape of the low-mass MZR is strongly calibration-dependent: the D16 N2S2H-alpha calibration gives a steep, decreasing relation, while the PMC09 O3N2 calibration gives a flat relation. The conclusion should either be stated separately for each calibration or accompanied by a quantitative criterion (e.g., offset from the SAMI extrapolation) that is met by all calibrations considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§8.1] The polynomial is written as '12 + log(O/H) = P4 i=0 pixi', but the fitting results are reported as four coefficients [p0, p1, p2, p3]; the notation should be made consistent, either as a sum from i=0 to 3 or with five coefficients.
  2. [§7] The word 'Bellowing' in the lead-in to the global spectroscopic properties should be 'Following'.
  3. [Fig. B1 caption] The caption says 'MUSE moke r-band image'; this should be 'mock'.
  4. [Fig. 6] The sentence describing the dot marking the minimum-dispersion α is unclear; please specify in the caption that the dot marks the location of the minimum for each curve.
  5. [Fig. 5] Unfilled symbols are used for galaxies whose line ratios exceed the applicable range of a calibration; please state explicitly in the text or caption whether these points are excluded from the polynomial fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MZR and FMR results are empirical fits to externally calibrated measurements, with no derived quantity rebuilt from the target claims.

full rationale

The metallicity values are produced by applying eight published strong-line calibrations (D16, C20, M13, PP04, PMC09) to measured emission-line ratios, and the paper explicitly excludes ratios outside each calibration's stated range, so the abundances are not defined by the MZR being claimed. The MZR fits are parametric descriptions of the combined DGIS, SAMI, and Berg et al. data, while the 'extrapolation of the higher mass end' statement is a comparison against the independently published Sánchez et al. (2019) polynomial rather than a quantity derived from that comparison. The aperture-effect comparison recalculates Berg et al. metallicities with the same equations, which is calibration consistency rather than fitting the conclusion. The FMR analysis defines mu_alpha and searches for the alpha that minimizes scatter relative to alpha=0; this is a direct empirical search, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or self-citation is invoked to force the result. The self-citations present (Shi et al. 2016, 2018; Du et al. 2023; Zheng et al. 2023) are contextual and do not carry the central MZR or FMR argument. The weakness of the SFR-scatter null result relative to calibration systematics is a legitimate robustness concern but is a question of statistical sensitivity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result inherits the mass scales and metallicities from external data (Cook et al. stellar masses, literature strong-line calibrations). No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted MZR polynomials and the alpha parameter are empirical descriptions, not independent constraints.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (FMR exponent) = 0.42 to 1.0 depending on calibration
    Introduced in Eq. 13 to minimize scatter between metallicity and the combined mass-SFR parameter. The null result relies on the flatness of dispersion versus alpha.
  • MZR polynomial coefficients p0-p3 = Not tabulated in text; annotated in Figure 5
    Fitted to the combined sample of SAMI, Berg et al., and DGIS to draw the red dashed lines. Used to support the claim that DGIS follows the extrapolation from higher masses.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Strong-line metallicity calibrations are valid at low metallicity (12+log(O/H) below about 8.3).
    All metallicities in Section 7(11) come from D16, M13, PP04, PMC09, and C20 calibrations. The paper notes systematic errors dominate, and Figure 5 shows calibration-dependent MZR shapes.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses are reliable with a fixed mass-to-light ratio of 0.5 at 3.6 micron.
    Stellar masses are adopted from Cook et al. (2014) using a constant mass-to-light ratio, as described in Section 7(1). The MZR x-axis depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The SMC-bar attenuation curve and Case B H-alpha/H-beta ratio of 2.86 are appropriate for these dwarf galaxies.
    Used for dust correction of emission lines in Section 5.3(3). The choice affects the line ratios and hence the derived metallicities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS): survey overview and the result of global mass-metallicity relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63NJ447C

@misc{pith2026250104943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS): survey overview and the result of global mass-metallicity relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63NJ447C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04943}
}
abstract

Low-mass galaxies are the building blocks of massive galaxies in the framework of hierarchical structure formation. To enable detailed studies of galactic ecosystems in dwarf galaxies by spatially resolving different galactic components, we have carried out the Dwarf Galaxy Integral-field Survey (DGIS). This survey aims to acquire observations with spatial resolutions as high as 10 to 100 pc while maintaining reasonably high signal-to-noise ratios with VLT/MUSE and ANU-2.3m/WiFeS. The whole sample will be composed of 65 dwarf galaxies with $M_{\rm \ast}$ $<$ 10$^{9}$ $\rm M_{\odot}$, selected from the Spitzer Local Volume Legacy Survey. The overall scientific goals include studying baryonic cycles in dwarf galaxies, searching for off-nuclear (intermediate)-massive black holes, and quantifying the inner density profiles of dark matter. In this work, we describe the sample selection, data reduction, and high-level data products. By integrating the spectra over the field of view for each galaxy, we obtained the integrated gas-phase metallicity and discussed its dependence on stellar mass and SFR. We find that the overall relation between metallicity and stellar mass of our DGIS nearly follows the extrapolation from the higher mass end. Its dispersion does not decrease by invoking the dependence on SFR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coverage of spatial resolutions and stellar masses for different IFS surveys. The color bar is the averaged exposure time normalized to the 8-m telescope (TEXP = texp/( 8 2 A2 ), where A is the diameter of telescopes). The names of surveys, the corresponding number of galaxies with stellar mass less than 109 M⊙, and the spectral resolution around 6563 ˚A are labeled near the rectangles and colored the same colors. D… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Aitoff projection of galaxies in the DGIS survey in the equatorial coordinate. The dashed line is the Galactic plane. 6 7 8 9 10 11 log M (M ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 lo g S F R(M y r 1 ) LVL sample DGIS sample 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Hubble Type 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 N LVL sample DGIS sample 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.2 12+log(O/H) 0 10 20 30 40 N LVL sample DGIS sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. left: M∗ versus SFR for the Local Volume Legacy survey (LVL, grey filled dots) and DGIS (tomato); middle: histograms of Hubble Type for LVL (faint grey) and DGIS (tomato); right: number distribution of metallicity (12+log(O/H)) for LVL (faint grey) and DGIS (tomato). The data with grey and tomato colors are all adopted from Dale et al. (2009), except for the the metallicity are collected from Cook et al. (2014). (3)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data products of CGCG035-007 in ‘BIN’ level, provided by Mapviewer. in the observing night logs are used to represent the PSF, as shown in Fig. A1. Since the DIMM SEEING are measured at the zenith, thus the V -band stellar FWHM were normalized to airmass=1, by dividing…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gas-phase metallicity versus stellar mass at galactic scale, colored with star formation rate. The corresponding metallicity calibration of each panel labeled at right corners: (a) N2S2Hα calibrations from Dopita et al. (2016) (D16); (b) and (c): O3N2 and N2 calibratio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metallicity dispersion versus adopted α in Eq. 13, and the dispersions are relative to the α = 0. One colored solid line represents one metallicity calibration and is labeled at the end. The α value which achieve the minimum dispersion is also labeled at the end with a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Radial Stellar Age Gradients in 42 Local Volume Dwarf Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In 42 dwarf galaxies, radial age gradients correlate strongly with global formation history in a way that favors simulations without radially breathing gas flows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Simon, J

    Adams, J. J., Simon, J. D., Fabricius, M. H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/63 2014

  2. [2]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/140

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/140 2013

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508, doi: 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  5. [5]

    J., Crnojevi´ c, D., et al

    Bennet, P., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´ c, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9180

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9180 2017

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 628, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935829

    Bittner, A., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., Nedelchev, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935829

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935829 2019

  8. [8]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7 Cair´ os, L. M., Caon, N., & Weilbacher, P. M. 2015, A&A, 577, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322518 Cair´ os, L. M., Caon, N., Zurita, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014004 —. 2009, A&A, 507, 1291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811576 C...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    Cappellari, M., Scott, N., Alatalo, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt562

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900 38

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    J., Vogt, F

    Childress, M. J., Vogt, F. P. A., Nielsen, J., & Sharp, R. G. 2014, Ap&SS, 349, 617, doi: 10.1007/s10509-013-1682-0

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    O., Dale, D

    Cook, D. O., Dale, D. A., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 899, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1787

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Lawrence, J

    Croom, S. M., Lawrence, J. S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 872, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20365.x

    2012

  10. [18]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    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

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Nierenberg, A

    Davis, A. B., Nierenberg, A. M., Peter, A. H. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3246 del Valle-Espinosa, M. G., S´ anchez-Janssen, R., Amor ´ ın, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1087

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Di Matteo, T., Ni, Y., Chen, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2198

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, PhR, 973, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2007, Ap&SS, 310, 255, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9510-z

    Dopita, M., Hart, J., McGregor, P., et al. 2007, Ap&SS, 310, 255, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9510-z

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, Ap&SS, 327, 245, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0335-9

    Dopita, M., Rhee, J., Farage, C., et al. 2010, Ap&SS, 327, 245, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0335-9

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Nidever, D

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Carlin, J. L., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac079d

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3341

    Du, K., Shi, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3341

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Rieke, G

    Engelbracht, C. W., Rieke, G. H., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 678, 804, doi: 10.1086/529513

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Morisset, C., et al

    Espinosa-Ponce, C., S´ anchez, S. F., Morisset, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac456

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, ApJS, 200, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/4

    Ferrarese, L., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/4

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    A., et al

    Ferrarese, L., Cˆ ot´ e, P., MacArthur, L. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab339f

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Werk, J

    Ford, A. B., Werk, J. K., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw595

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    M., et al

    Freudling, W., Romaniello, M., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, A&A, 635, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037595

    Fusco, T., Bacon, R., Kamann, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A208, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037595

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Galbany, L., Anderson, J. P., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2620

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    C., B´ ethermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936872

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Salzer, J

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Salzer, J. J., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 2036, doi: 10.1086/117014

    1994 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2007, ApJ, 670, 92, doi: 10.1086/522082

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Duc, P.-A., et al

    Habas, R., Marleau, F. R., Duc, P.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3045 Hauschild Roier, G. R., Storchi-Bergmann, T., McDermid, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac634

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    R., et al

    Heesters, N., M¨ uller, O., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346441

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    K., & Izotov, Y

    Henkel, C., Hunt, L. K., & Izotov, Y. I. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 11, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010011

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321, doi: 10.1086/143018

    1926 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1993

    Hunt, L., Dayal, P., Magrini, L., & Ferrara, A. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1993

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Thuan, T

    Hunt, L. K., Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Sauvage, M. 2010, ApJ, 712, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/164

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Shane, N

    James, P. A., Shane, N. S., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2004, A&A, 414, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031568

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kaiser, N., Burgett, W., Chambers, K., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 77330E, doi: 10.1117/12.859188

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    D., Kaisina, E

    Karachentsev, I. D., Kaisina, E. I., & Kashibadze Nasonova, O. G. 2017, AJ, 153, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/6

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    V., & Salucci, P

    Karukes, E. V., & Salucci, P. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3055

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    K., Isobe, Y., et al

    Kashiwagi, Y., Inoue, A. K., Isobe, Y., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1631, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab100 39

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Schmidt, B

    Keller, S. C., Schmidt, B. P., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2007, PASA, 24, 1, doi: 10.1071/AS07001

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Funes, J

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J., Lee, J. C., Funes, J. G., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 247, doi: 10.1086/590058

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Ellison, S

    Kewley, L. J., & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183, doi: 10.1086/587500

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba047

    Kojima, T., Ouchi, M., Rauch, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba047

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Blanc, G

    Kreckel, K., Ho, I. T., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5115

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 1076, doi: 10.1086/379105

    Kroupa, P., & Weidner, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1076, doi: 10.1086/379105

    2003 doi

  54. [62]

    L., & Irwin, M

    Kumari, N., James, B. L., & Irwin, M. J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1414

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Irwin, M

    Kumari, N., James, B. L., Irwin, M. J., Amor ´ ın, R., & P´ erez-Montero, E. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty402

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    A., & Ferrara, A

    Latif, M. A., & Ferrara, A. 2016, PASA, 33, e051, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.41

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Cannon, J

    Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 970, doi: 10.1086/505573

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 1305, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1305

    Sakai, S., & Akiyama, S. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1305, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1305

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Gil de Paz, A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., et al

    Lee, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/6

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1436 L´ opez-Cob´ a, C., S´ anchez, S. F., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7848

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, in The Build-Up of Galaxies through Multiple Tracers and Facilities, 34, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3756488

    Lopez-Sanchez, A. 2020, in The Build-Up of Galaxies through Multiple Tracers and Facilities, 34, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3756488

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    2023, A&A, 670, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895

    Marasco, A., Belfiore, F., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Marino, R. A., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., S´ anchez, S. F., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    Mashchenko, S., Wadsley, J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, Science, 319, 174, doi: 10.1126/science.1148666

    2008 doi

  67. [75]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163 Mill´ an-Irigoyen, I., Moll´ a, M., Cervi˜ no, M., et al

    Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163 Mill´ an-Irigoyen, I., Moll´ a, M., Cervi˜ no, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1969

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, A&A, 3, 455

    1969

  69. [77]

    R., & V ´ ılchez, J

    Monreal-Ibero, A., Walsh, J. R., & V ´ ılchez, J. M. 2012, A&A, 544, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219543 Moti˜ no Flores, S. M., Wiklind, T., & Eufrasio, R. T. 2021, ApJ, 921, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18cc

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7710

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2761, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2761

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

    2008 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Brinks, E., et al

    Oh, S.-H., Hunter, D. A., Brinks, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 180, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/180

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e061, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.53

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    1997, A&AS, 124, 109, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997354 P´ erez-Montero, E., & Contini, T

    Paturel, G., Andernach, H., Bottinelli, L., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 109, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997354 P´ erez-Montero, E., & Contini, T. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15145.x P´ eroux, C., & Howk, J. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014

    1997

  76. [84]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    2004

  77. [85]

    R., Habas, R., et al

    Poulain, M., Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2092

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    2014, A&A, 561, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322581

    Proxauf, B., ¨Ottl, S., & Kimeswenger, S. 2014, A&A, 561, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322581

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01556-0

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    L., Wu, Y., Le Floc’h, E., et al

    Rosenberg, J. L., Wu, Y., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 814, doi: 10.1086/524975

    2008 doi

  82. [90]

    Karachentsev, I. D. 2010, MNRAS, 404, L60, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00835.x

    2010

  83. [91]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c S´ anchez, S. F. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 99, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-012120-013326 S´ anchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353...

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    L., et al

    Sarzi, M., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., Davies, R. L., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09839.x

    2006

  85. [93]

    2022, A&A, 665, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Barrufet, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  87. [95]

    S., Peletier, R

    Scott, N., Eftekhari, F. S., Peletier, R. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1571, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2042

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    R., et al

    Sharda, P., Ginzburg, O., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.15853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15853

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    2008, ApJ, 688, 794, doi: 10.1086/592192

    Shi, Y., Rieke, G., Donley, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 794, doi: 10.1086/592192

    2008 doi

  90. [98]

    2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13789, doi: 10.1038/ncomms13789

    Shi, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13789, doi: 10.1038/ncomms13789

    2016 doi

  91. [99]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    Shi, Y., Yan, L., Armus, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    2018 doi

  92. [100]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  93. [101]

    E., Johnson, K

    Stierwalt, S., Liss, S. E., Johnson, K. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0025, doi: 10.1038/s41550-016-0025

    2017 doi

  94. [102]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  95. [103]

    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

  96. [104]

    K., & Ginolfi, M

    Tortora, C., Hunt, L. K., & Ginolfi, M. 2022, A&A, 657, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140414

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  98. [106]

    M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., Norman, M. L., & Abel, T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/50

    2012 doi

  100. [108]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  101. [109]

    J., Bresolin, F., Kewley, L

    Zahid, H. J., Bresolin, F., Kewley, L. J., Coil, A. L., & Dav´ e, R. 2012, ApJ, 750, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/120

    2012 doi

  102. [110]

    H., & Weisz, D

    Zhang, H.-X., Puzia, T. H., & Weisz, D. R. 2017, ApJS, 233, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa937b

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 663, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/663

    Zhao, Y., Gao, Y., & Gu, Q. 2010, ApJ, 710, 663, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/663

    2010 doi

  104. [112]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1642

    Zheng, Z., Shi, Y., Bian, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1642

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.