Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 7 references

Galaxy And Mass Assembly: A new approach to quantifying dust in galaxies

T0 review · 4 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 Two new parameters combining the Balmer decrement with dust mass quantify dust geometry, and support the maximal foreground screen model for starburst galaxies.

desk verdict Fdust and Hdust are genuinely new dust diagnostics with real empirical correlations, but the headline foreground-screen interpretation is partly built into Fdust's definition and needs validation before the strong claims can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13797 v1 pith:XHKJQPZ5 submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.GA

B. Farley , U. T. Ahmed , A. M. Hopkins , M. Cowley , A. Battisti , S. Casura , Y. Gordon , B. W. Holwerda
show 3 more authors
S. Phillipps C. Robertson T. Zafar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustobscurationgeometryBalmerdecrementmassstar-forminggalaxiesstarformationrateGAMAsurveyopticallythick
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces two parameters, $F_{\rm dust}$ and $H_{\rm dust}$, built by combining the Balmer decrement (the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ line ratio, a standard reddening measure) with a galaxy's total dust mass $M_d$. The two ingredients are not directly correlated, but the paper argues that together they separate how much optically thick dust a galaxy has from how that dust is arranged relative to the star-forming regions. Using GAMA survey galaxies, the paper shows that the new parameters track deficits in H$\alpha$ and ultraviolet light relative to far-infrared light, and that galaxies with high specific star formation rates lie near the maximal foreground screen geometry, in which dust forms a uniform screen in front of the stars. If this interpretation holds, $F_{\rm dust}$ and $H_{\rm dust}$ give a way to quantify dust geometry from integrated spectra and photometry rather than from spatially resolved modelling.

What carries the argument

The two named parameters carry the argument. $F_{\rm dust}$ is the normalised vertical position of a galaxy between the Case B line and an empirical upper envelope, $\log {\rm BD}_{\rm Env} = 0.185\log M_d - 0.481$ (with a surface-density version using $\log {\rm BD}_{\rm Env} = 0.459\log \Sigma_{M_d} - 1.801$). $H_{\rm dust}=10^{1.0508}M_d/{\rm BD}^{2.303}$ is the dust mass normalised by the Balmer optical depth, equivalent to $M_d/10^{\tau_B^l}$ for a foreground screen. The associated H$\alpha$ deficit and FUV deficit ratios, $L_{\rm FIR}/L_{{\rm H}\alpha}$ and $L_{\rm FIR}/L_{\rm FUV}$, are the independent probes of optically thick dust used to validate both parameters.

What would settle it

Deeper H$\beta$ observations at high dust mass would settle it: if the apparent upper envelope in the BD--$M_d$ plane fills in as faint H$\beta$ lines are recovered, $F_{\rm dust}$ is measuring incompleteness rather than geometry. A second check is to replace the empirical envelope with one predicted by a clumpy interstellar medium model; if that model reproduces the envelope and still puts high-sSFR galaxies at $F_{\rm dust}\approx 1$, the foreground screen interpretation is not unique.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining the Balmer decrement (BD) with dust mass ($M_d$) yields two diagnostics that separately trace dust geometry and optical depth. $F_{\rm dust}$ places a galaxy between the Case B line, where BD = 2.86 and there is no obscuration, and a fitted upper envelope in the BD--$M_d$ plane, so $F_{\rm dust}=1$ corresponds to a maximal foreground screen and $F_{\rm dust}=0$ to maximal distributed dust. $H_{\rm dust}=M_d/10^{\tau_B^l}$ normalises the dust mass by the Balmer optical depth, making it a tracer of the quantity of optically thick dust. The paper establishes that these parameters correlate with H$\alpha$ and FUV deficits relative to far-infrared emission, and that high specific star formation selects galaxies with $F_{\rm dust}$ near 1, supporting the maximal foreground screen model for starbursts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted upper envelope in the BD--$M_d$ plane marks where a foreground screen geometry sits; if the envelope actually comes from sample selection, incompleteness, or a clumpy dust geometry with varying covering fraction, then the geometric meaning of $F_{\rm dust}$ and the starburst conclusion no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys can now estimate dust geometry from quantities they already measure (BD, $M_d$, and FIR luminosity), without resolved imaging or radiative-transfer fitting.
  • The $H_{\rm dust}$--H$\alpha$ deficit correlation identifies galaxies in which standard obscuration corrections still leave H$\alpha$-based star formation rates underestimated because some Balmer emission is entirely absorbed.
  • The rise of $F_{\rm dust}$ with SFR and sSFR, at fixed stellar mass, supports applying starburst-style foreground screen attenuation corrections to the most actively star-forming galaxies.
  • The consistency of the $H_{\rm dust}$ relation across four mass-limited redshift bins out to $z\approx0.35$ indicates the connection between optically thick dust and geometry does not evolve strongly over that range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to construct the same BD--$M_d$ plane with dust masses from other SED tools or from long-wavelength dust emission; if the envelope slope changes, $F_{\rm dust}$ must be recalibrated for those samples.
  • Comparing the empirical envelope with radiative-transfer models of clumpy, fractal dust would test whether the 'distributed' corner of the diagram is really one geometry or a family of covering fractions; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • Because the Balmer lines cannot see the most optically thick regions, combining $F_{\rm dust}$ and $H_{\rm dust}$ with radio or mid-infrared SFR tracers could put a quantitative upper limit on the star formation hidden from optical surveys.
  • Applied to spatially resolved observations, these metrics could be computed per pixel or per H II region, connecting global dust geometry to local covering fraction and column density.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 842 star-forming galaxies from the GAMA survey to introduce two dust-geometry diagnostics built from the Balmer decrement (BD) and dust mass (Md). The first parameter, Fdust (Eq. 17), measures the vertical position of a galaxy's BD between the Case B value (2.86) and an empirically fitted upper envelope in the BD–Md plane (Eq. 7); it is interpreted as the relative contribution of foreground-screen versus distributed dust geometry, with Fdust=1 called a 'maximal foreground screen.' The second, Hdust (Eq. 18), is defined as Md divided by 10^tau_B, i.e., the dust mass normalized by the Balmer optical depth, and is interpreted as a tracer of optically thick dust. The authors show that Hdust correlates with Halpha and FUV deficits (LFIR/LHalpha and LFIR/LFUV), that Fdust correlates with SFR and sSFR, and that Fdust is largely independent of stellar mass. They conclude that high-sSFR (starburst) galaxies favor a maximal foreground-screen dust geometry and that the diagnostics are sensitive probes of dust geometry. The paper is explicit that 'foreground screen' and 'distributed dust' are convenient descriptors rather than literal physical regimes.

Significance. If the envelope identification is valid, the paper offers two simple observational diagnostics that combine information from two widely available quantities, BD and Md. Hdust is cleanly defined and correlates with independent indicators of optical depth (r=0.64 for Halpha deficit and r=0.52 for FUV deficit), while Fdust removes the stellar-mass dependence seen in Hdust and correlates with sSFR. The paper uses public GAMA data, gives transparent equations with standard calibrations, checks that the results are insensitive to inclination, and verifies the Hdust–Halpha deficit trend across four mass-limited redshift bins. However, the physical interpretation of Fdust as a geometry indicator rests on an empirical envelope whose identification as the foreground-screen locus is not independently tested, and the sSFR–Fdust correlation may be partly a consequence of the parameter definition rather than a geometric effect. The central claim is therefore conditional on additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (7)] The central assumption that the empirical upper envelope in the BD–Md plane traces the foreground-screen sequence is load-bearing but not quantitatively tested. The paper states that the envelope 'traces the BD values resulting from a foreground screen geometry' without giving fit uncertainties for the slope and intercept in Eqs. (7) and (8), and without comparing the envelope to a radiative-transfer or analytic screen model that predicts BD as a function of Md. Because Fdust in Eq. (17) is normalized by this same envelope, the later claim that high-sSFR galaxies have Fdust near unity partly restates the fitted envelope. I ask the authors to (i) report uncertainties on the envelope parameters, (ii) test the screen identification against a simple screen model with assumed dust properties, and (iii) assess whether sample incompleteness or MAGPHYS Md systematics could produce the envelope. The manuscript's own caveat that 'such envelopes may differ quantitatively' for different samples or Md estimators makes this validation necessary, not optional.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (17)] The denominator of Fdust, log(BDEnv/2.86), becomes small at the low-Md end of the sample because the envelope slope is shallow (0.185 in Eq. 7). For example, at log Md ~ 6, a modest BD of about 4 already yields Fdust near 0.8. If high-sSFR galaxies preferentially have lower stellar masses and hence lower dust masses, the apparent Fdust–sSFR correlation in Figure 17b could be driven by this normalization rather than by a change in dust geometry. The authors should demonstrate that the trend persists when Fdust is examined in narrow Md bins, or should redefine Fdust with a denominator computed from the envelope uncertainty and show that the sSFR trend is not an artifact of the low-Md leverage.
  3. [Section 4, Fdust definition] The paper clips Fdust to 1 for galaxies above the envelope and to 0 for galaxies below the Case B line, but it does not report how many galaxies are affected. If a non-negligible fraction of the sample is clipped, the pile-up at Fdust=1 can artificially enhance the apparent concentration of high-sSFR galaxies at the maximal foreground-screen value. The authors should state the clipped fractions and repeat the key trends (Figures 16b and 17b) with the clipping removed or with a rank-based estimator to show that the conclusions do not depend on this censoring.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 9] Figure 9 is used to argue that low-BD, high-Hdust galaxies are not consistent with a foreground screen, which is a useful negative test. However, no equivalent positive test establishes that galaxies near the envelope are actually screen-like. In fact, Figure 9 shows essentially no correlation between BD and SigmaMd (r=0.013), which is not obviously consistent with the interpretation that the envelope in the BD–Md plane is the screen sequence. The authors should quantify the BD–SigmaMd relation for galaxies near the envelope, or model the expected scatter in that relation under the screen hypothesis, to reconcile the screen interpretation with the absence of a global BD–SigmaMd correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) appears to be missing a division operator between 0.44 log(BD) and 0.4(k(Hbeta)-k(Halpha)); please correct the typesetting so the formula is unambiguous.
  2. [Section 4, Halpha deficit definition] The 'Halpha deficit' is introduced verbally as the ratio of FIR luminosity to the BD-corrected Halpha luminosity, but Eq. (16) only defines LFIR. Please give the explicit expression for the deficit, including which Halpha luminosity is used and how the BD enters.
  3. [Tables/Figures, correlation coefficients] The correlation coefficients quoted in the text and figures are reported without uncertainties or sample-size information. For example, the r=0.596 value in Figure 17b is used to support a central claim; please provide uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap or jackknife) and the number of objects in each bin.
  4. [Section 2.1, sample selection] The FIR signal-to-noise threshold of S/N >= 1 is unusually low and may introduce noisy FIR fluxes. Please discuss how this threshold affects the LFIR-based deficits and whether the results are stable if only FIR S/N >= 3 objects are used.
  5. [General] The abstract states that the diagnostics 'demonstrate' support for the maximal foreground screen model, but the body of the paper appropriately hedges that the terms are convenient descriptors. Please align the abstract with the more cautious language used in Section 4.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fdust's 'maximal foreground screen' label is assigned to the fitted envelope, so the starburst-support conclusion is partly built into the parameter definition.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Eq. 7), Section 4 (Eq. 17), Section 6 (Fig. 17b discussion)]
    "In the case of Figure 2a this envelope traces the BD values resulting from a foreground screen geometry as the optical depth of the screen increases. ... Fdust is calculated as Fdust = log BD – log(2.86) / log BDEnv – log(2.86) (17) where BDEnv is the BD value at the envelope line from Figure 2a (Equation 7). ... A value of Fdust = 1 may be referred to as a 'maximal foreground screen' geometry, and Fdust = 0 as a 'maximal distributed dust' geometry."

    Fdust is defined as the vertical position of BD between the Case B value (2.86) and the empirically fitted upper envelope BDEnv (Eq. 7), and the same passage labels Fdust=1 'maximal foreground screen.' The abstract's claim that starburst galaxies support the maximal foreground screen model therefore reduces to saying that high-sSFR galaxies lie near the fitted envelope. The envelope is an empirical characterisation fitted to the same BD-Md dataset, and the paper itself warns it may differ for other samples or Md estimators; thus the physical label 'foreground screen' is assigned to the fit by construction rather than derived from an independent geometry test.

full rationale

The central circularity is localized to Fdust. Equation 17 normalizes BD by an envelope (Eq. 7) fitted to the same BD-Md data, and Fdust=1 is then named 'maximal foreground screen.' Consequently, the headline conclusion that high-sSFR galaxies support the maximal foreground screen model is a restatement of the fact that those galaxies lie near the fitted envelope, with the geometry label imposed by definition. The paper's Fig. 9 provides a separate, non-circular empirical argument that high-Hdust galaxies are better described by distributed dust, and the authors explicitly address the shared-BD concern in the Hα-deficit correlation by stating it persists with uncorrected Hα luminosities. Hdust is definitionally related to the foreground-screen attenuation factor, but it is not the main source of the headline circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. Because the underlying data correlation is real but the physical interpretation of the central diagnostic is assigned by construction, the overall circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two new diagnostics built from existing observables. The main free parameters are the envelope fits used to anchor Fdust. The central model interpretation (envelope equals foreground screen) is assumed rather than derived. No new physical entities are posited; Fdust and Hdust are constructed metrics.

free parameters (3)
  • BD-Md envelope slope and intercept = 0.185, -0.481 (Eq. 7)
    Empirical fit to the upper envelope of the BD versus Md diagram; it defines the normalization of Fdust. Without error bars, the fit is treated as fixed.
  • BD-SigmaMd envelope slope and intercept = 0.459, -1.801 (Eq. 8)
    Empirical fit for the SigmaMd version of the envelope, used to define SigmaFdust. This is secondary because the paper uses Fdust for most conclusions.
  • Stellar absorption equivalent width EWc = 2.5 Angstrom
    Adopted correction for stellar absorption in Halpha and Hbeta following Gunawardhana et al. (2013); enters the BD calculation and all SFR estimates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Balmer decrement is sensitive only to optically thin dust along the line of sight, while Md traces the total dust content including optically thick regions.
    Stated in Section 1 and used throughout; the complementarity of BD and Md is the foundation of the two new parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper The upper envelope of the BD-Md diagram traces a foreground screen geometry with increasing optical depth.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and Figure 3 to give Fdust physical meaning. No independent model or simulation is used to validate this mapping.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic Case B Balmer decrement Halpha/Hbeta = 2.86 corresponds to zero obscuration.
    Used in Eq. 2 and as the zero point for Fdust; standard in nebular astrophysics (Osterbrock 1989).
  • domain assumption The Calzetti et al. (2000) attenuation law and the E(B-V) to BD conversion (Eq. 14) are valid for this galaxy sample.
    Used to compute obscuration-corrected SFRFUV; this is a standard assumption but affects the comparison plots and the interpretation of the Halpha deficit.
invented entities (2)
  • Fdust
    purpose: Quantify the proportion of foreground screen versus distributed dust geometry by normalizing BD between the Case B value and the empirical envelope.
    Fdust is a new composite diagnostic defined using a fitted envelope. Its geometric interpretation inherits the envelope assumption, so it is not an independently evidenced physical quantity.
  • Hdust
    purpose: Quantify normalized dust mass and optical depth by dividing Md by a BD-derived attenuation factor.
    Hdust is a re-expression of Md and BD with fixed constants. Its interpretation as an optically thick dust tracer is validated only by correlations within the same data, not by an external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galaxy And Mass Assembly: A new approach to quantifying dust in galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHKJQPZ5

@misc{pith2026250513797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galaxy And Mass Assembly: A new approach to quantifying dust in galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHKJQPZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13797}
}
abstract

We introduce a new approach to quantifying dust in galaxies by combining information from the Balmer decrement (BD) and the dust mass ($M_d$). While there is no explicit correlation between these two properties, they jointly probe different aspects of the dust present in galaxies. We explore two new parameters that link BD with $M_d$ by using star formation rate sensitive luminosities at several wavelengths (ultraviolet, H$\alpha$, and far-infrared). This analysis shows that combining the BD and $M_d$ in these ways provides new metrics that are sensitive to the degree of optically thick dust affecting the short wavelength emission. We show how these new ''dust geometry'' parameters vary as a function of galaxy mass, star formation rate, and specific star formation rate. We demonstrate that they are sensitive probes of the dust geometry in galaxies, and that they support the ''maximal foreground screen'' model for dust in starburst galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a shows the case in which there is a low Md in a foreground screen geometry. In this scenario, there is little obscuration of the light. In Figure 1b, the increase in Md results in greater obscuration due to the increased optical depth. In Figure 1c the Md has increased to an extreme limit in which the optical depth is so great that any starlight is completely obscured. (a) Foreground Screen with low Md (b) Foregrou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BD as a function of (a) Md , and (b) dust surface density, coloured by M∗. The black dotted line represents the observed upper envelope of the data. The black dashed line represents the BD Case B value of 2.86. This Case B value of 2.86 is the BD value which corresponds to no obscuration (Osterbrock 1989). The correlation coefficient for panel (a) is 0.022 and the correlation coefficient for panel (b) is 0.013. when… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram conceptualising where the different dust ge￾ometries shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Md as a function of M∗, (b) ΣMd as a function of M∗, (c) Md /M∗ as a function of M∗, and (d) ΣMd /ΣM∗ as a function of ΣM∗ , with all panels coloured by Hα SFR. The correlation coefficients are 0.66 for panel (a), 0.28 for panel (b), -0.032 for panel (c), and -0.47…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) BD as a function of SFRHα,Obs/SFRFUV, Obs, and (b) BD as a function of SFRHα/SFRFUV, both coloured by M∗. The correlation coefficient for panel (a) is 0.21 and the correlation coefficient for panel (b) is -0.399. With obscuration corrections in place, the correlati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: compares the Fdust and ΣFdust values. The data are centred quite evenly around the 1:1 line, although there is a slight tendency towards somewhat higher Fdust values compared to ΣFdust . The mostly even distribution about the 1:1 line indicates that Fdust and ΣFdust ar…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ΣMd as a function of BD, coloured by Hdust. The dashed line repre￾sents the Case B value at BD = 2.86. The correlation coefficient is 0.013. We now have two parameters which each provide a new way to quantify the optical depth and geometry of a galaxy’s dust, with Fdus…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relationships between SFRHα/SFRFUV and (a) Hdust, and (b) Fdust, each coloured by M∗. The correlation coefficient for panel (a) is 0.093 and the correlation coefficient for panel (b) is -0.14. between Hdust and SFRHα/SFRFUV, while Figure 10b would show a negative …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The four volume-limited samples used to explore any redshift and mass dependencies. Figures 12a and 12b show the relationships between Hdust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Hdust and (b) Fdust as a function of Hα deficit coloured by M∗. The line in (a) is not a fit, simply given to guide the eye. The correlation coefficient for panel (a) is 0.64 and the correlation coefficient for panel (b) is -0.59. M∗ systems, the trend is consiste…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Hdust as a function of Hα deficit coloured by M∗ for the mass-limited redshift bins, and (b) Fdust as a function of Hα deficit coloured by M∗ for the mass-limited redshift bins. The lines in (a) are the same as in Figure 12a to guide the eye, and highlight that, w…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Hdust as a function of FUV deficit coloured by M∗, and (b) Fdust as a function of FUV deficit coloured by M∗. The correlation coefficient for panel (a) is 0.52 and the correlation coefficient for panel (b) is -0.52 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The relationship between M∗ and (a) Hdust, and (b) Fdust coloured by SFRHα. The data are separated into four M∗ bins. The black stars represent the median value in each bin when the bins are evenly spaced. The black diamonds represent the median value in each bin when…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The relationship between SFRHα and (a) Hdust, and (b) Fdust coloured by M∗. The data are separated into four SFR bins. The black stars represent the median value in each bin when the bins are evenly spaced. The black diamonds represent the median value in each bin whe…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The relationship between sSFRHα and (a) Hdust, and (b) Fdust, coloured by M∗. The data are separated into four sSFR bins. The black stars represent the median value in each bin when the bins are evenly spaced. The black diamonds represent the median value in each bin …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [3]

    https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article- lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2008.13535.x

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2008.13535.x. https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article- lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2008.13535.x. De Vis, P., L. Dunne, S. Maddox, H. L. Gomez, C. J. R. Clark, A. E. Bauer, S. Viaene, et al. 2017. Herschel -A TLAS: revealing dust build-up and decline across gas, dust and stellar mass selected samples – I. Scaling re...

    arXiv 2008

  2. [4]

    https://academic.oup

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2501. https://academic.oup. com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/stw2501. Driver, S. P., D. T. Hill, L. S. Kelvin, A. S. G. Robotham, J. Liske, P. Norberg, I. K. Baldry, et al. 2011. Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): survey diagnostics and core data release: GAMA [in en]. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci...

    arXiv 2011

  3. [7]

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1086/379608

    https://doi.org/10.1086/379608. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1086/379608. 18 B. Farley et al. Kauffmann, Guinevere, Timothy M. Heckman, Christy Tremonti, Jarle Brinchmann, Stéphane Charlot, Simon D. M. White, Susan E. Ridg- way, et al. 2003. The host galaxies of active galactic nuclei [in en]. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society346...

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article- lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2011.18615.x

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2011.18615.x. https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article- lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2011.18615.x. Witt, Adolf N., Harley A. Thronson Jr., and John M. Capuano Jr. 1992. Dust and the transfer of stellar radiation within galaxies [in en]. The Astro- physical Journal 393 (July): 611. ISSN: 0004-637X, 1538-4357, accessed...

    arXiv 2011

  5. [296]

    https://doi.org/10

    ISSN: 00046256, accessed October 16, 2023. https://doi.org/10. 1086/321113. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/321113. Hopkins, A. M., C. J. Miller, R. C. Nichol, A. J. Connolly, M. Bernardi, P. L. Gomez, T. Goto, et al. 2003. Star Formation Rate Indicators in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [in en]. The Astrophysical Journal 599, no. 2 (December): 9...

    doi:10.1086/321113 2023

  6. [2023]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1086/324269

    https://doi.org/10.1086/324269. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1086/324269. . 2001b. The effects of dust on the spectral energy distribution of star-forming galaxies [in en]. New Astronomy Reviews 45, nos. 9-10 (October): 601–607. ISSN: 13876473, accessed February 27, 2023. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00144-0. https://linkinghub.elsevier...

    arXiv

  7. [2025]

    https://academic.oup

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2749. https://academic.oup. com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/stw2749. Calzetti, Daniela. 2001a. The Dust Opacity of Star-forming Galaxies [in en]. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 113, no. 790 (Decem- ber): 1449–1485. ISSN: 0004-6280, 1538-3873, accessed November 8,

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2749

Pith tools

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