Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 117 references

The role of young and evolved stars in the heating of dust in local galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No single mechanism heats cold dust in nearby spiral galaxies: young and evolved stars share the job, with the balance varying from galaxy to galaxy.

desk verdict New Tdust maps and a clean presentation, but Method 2's p-values are interpreted backwards and Method 1 lacks error bars; the 72% and 56% headline numbers are not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12275 v1 pith:PMFP3YIX submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.GA

Vidhi Tailor , Viviana Casasola , Francesca Pozzi , Francesco Calura , Simone Bianchi , Monica Relano , Jacopo Fritz , Frédéric Galliano
show 4 more authors
Matteo Bonato Maritza A. Lara-López Evangelos Dimitrios Paspaliaris Alberto Traina
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustheatingcoldspiralgalaxiestemperaturestarformationratesurfacedensitystellarmassPediafar-infraredobservations
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 asks what heats the cold dust that makes up most of the dust mass in nearby spiral galaxies, and it argues that there is no single answer. Comparing 18 face-on spirals from the DustPedia project, the authors find that both young, massive stars and evolved stellar populations contribute measurably, and the balance shifts from galaxy to galaxy. In 10 of 18 galaxies, dust temperature correlates more strongly with star-formation surface density than with stellar mass surface density; in the remaining 8, the evolved population takes the lead. A second test, built on the relation between dust temperature and dust mass surface density, finds that young stars alone cannot account for the observed heating in 13 of 18 galaxies. The two methods agree on the dominant heating source in 13 of 18 galaxies, supporting a picture of mixed heating rather than a universal dominant mechanism.

What carries the argument

The quantitative backbone is Eq. (7), a scaling from Utomo et al. (2019): $$(4+\$\beta$)\log T_{\rm dust}=A+(n-1)\log\Sigma_{\rm dust}.$$ It chains four proportionalities: IR luminosity from young stars ($\Sigma_{\rm LIR}\propto\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$), the Kennicutt\,--\,Schmidt law $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}\propto\Sigma_{\rm gas}^n$ with fixed $n=2.19$, a constant gas-to-dust ratio ($\Sigma_{\rm gas}\propto\Sigma_{\rm dust}$), and optically thin modified-blackbody emission $L_{\rm IR}\propto M_{\rm dust}T_{\rm dust}^{4+\beta}$. For each galaxy the observed log $T_{\rm dust}$\,--\,log $\Sigma_{\rm dust}$ relation is fit with this prediction and a $\chi^2$ $p$-value (threshold 0.05) decides whether young-star heating alone explains the data. The first method, comparing weighted Pearson coefficients $r(T_{\rm dust},\Sigma_{\rm SFR})$ and $r(T_{\rm dust},\Sigma_{M_\ast})$, is the less assumption-heavy cross-check.

What would settle it

Run the same two-method analysis on galaxies with resolved, per-pixel measurements of both the old and young stellar radiation fields, for instance from 3D radiative-transfer modeling or SED decomposition, and ask whether the heat absorbed from evolved stars matches the deviations from the Utomo relation; if galaxies currently classified as young-star heated show equally strong evolved heating, the conclusion fails. A cheaper version is to redo the p-value test with per-galaxy Kennicutt–Schmidt slopes and metallicity-dependent CO-to-H2 and gas-to-dust ratios: if the 13/18 deviations disappear, the claim that there is no single dominant heating mechanism would no longer be supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cold dust ($T_{\rm dust}\sim15$\,--\,$24$ K) in typical nearby spiral galaxies is heated by both young and evolved stars, with no universal dominant mechanism. This is established with two complementary diagnostics: pixel-by-pixel weighted Pearson correlations between $T_{\rm dust}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ versus $T_{\rm dust}$ and $\Sigma_{M_\ast}$, and a $\chi^2$ comparison of the observed log $T_{\rm dust}$\,--\,log $\Sigma_{\rm dust}$ relation against the prediction of Utomo et al. (2019) that $(4+\beta)\log T_{\rm dust} = A + (n-1)\log\Sigma_{\rm dust}$ under pure young-star heating. The correlation test puts 10 of 18 galaxies on the young-star side of the 1:1 line, while the $p$-value test leaves 13 of 18 galaxies above $\alpha=0.05$, meaning the young-star-only prediction is not consistent with those data. The two methods agree on the dominant heating source in 13 of 18 galaxies, which the authors read as evidence that both stellar populations contribute, with the balance depending on the galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The second method's verdict rests on the assumption that, pixel by pixel, infrared luminosity is a clean tracer of young-star heating and that gas, dust, and star formation connect through fixed power laws: a single Kennicutt–Schmidt slope of n = 2.19, a constant CO-to-H2 conversion factor, and a constant gas-to-dust ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dust temperature at a given galaxy radius is not a reliable standalone star-formation tracer, since the evolved population can maintain a substantial warm component.
  • Interpreting resolved far-infrared and sub-millimeter emission in terms of ongoing star formation will overestimate star formation rates in the roughly half of galaxies where evolved stars dominate the heating.
  • Galaxy-wide radiative-transfer models must include both stellar populations to reproduce the observed $T_{\rm dust}$ radial gradients, not just the young stars.
  • Low-luminosity AGN activity can be ignored as a dust-heating agent on the 0.3\,--\,3 kpc scales studied, since no temperature difference is seen between Seyfert and non-AGN galaxies.
  • Per-galaxy Kennicutt\,--\,Schmidt slopes and spatially resolved metallicity will be needed to separate the young- and evolved-star contributions robustly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the result holds, statistical SED-fitting codes that assume a single radiation-field intensity per pixel will systematically misestimate dust masses in galaxies where evolved heating is significant.
  • The 28% of galaxies where the two methods disagree (e.g., NGC 628 and NGC 5055) are the natural testing ground for the method's assumptions, since their deviation should vanish if per-pixel radiation fields are modeled directly.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same two-method comparison to galaxies with measured metallicities, predicting that high-metallicity galaxies show stronger evolved-star heating because their CO-to-H2 conversion factors and gas-to-dust ratios break the assumed proportionality.
  • A future far-infrared survey with higher spatial resolution could check whether the galaxies classified as young-star heated are merely those where evolved heating is smeared out by resolution effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper examines dust heating in 18 nearby, face-on spiral galaxies from DustPedia. The authors construct T_dust maps at 36-arcsecond resolution and analyze pixel-by-pixel correlations between T_dust, Σ_SFR, and Σ_M* (Method 1), as well as the T_dust–Σ_dust relation against the Utomo et al. (2019) prediction (Method 2). They report that T_dust declines from about 24 K at the center to about 15 K at R25, that AGNs do not significantly affect T_dust on the sampled scales, and that both young and evolved stars contribute to dust heating, with the relative importance varying by galaxy. The two methods agree in 13 of 18 galaxies, which the authors interpret as supporting a picture in which young stars are not the sole heating source in most systems.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper's conclusion that neither young nor evolved stars alone dominate cold-dust heating in typical nearby spirals would moderate the common assumption that star-formation tracers fully determine dust temperature and would motivate per-galaxy resolved radiative-transfer and energy-balance studies. The paper's strengths are the homogeneous multi-wavelength dataset, the new T_dust maps at the SPIRE-500 resolution, and the explicit comparison with published RT results for several galaxies in the sample. However, the statistical support for the headline claim currently has two load-bearing gaps: the Method 1 classification is based on correlation coefficients without any uncertainty estimates, and the Method 2 p-value is interpreted in a way that appears reversed relative to standard chi-square goodness-of-fit usage. The paper also honestly lists the main assumptions of Method 2 in Section 4, which is commendable but does not by itself remove the need for sensitivity tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.1, Table 4, Fig. 7] The classification of each galaxy as young-star or evolved-star dominated, and the resulting 56%/44% split, rests on differences between two weighted Pearson coefficients that are not accompanied by any uncertainty estimate. For the tens of independent 36-arcsec pixels per galaxy, the sampling error on r is typically 0.1–0.2 (Fisher z), yet several galaxies lie within 0.02–0.10 of the 1:1 line (e.g., NGC 3031: 0.64 vs 0.66; NGC 4736: 0.70 vs 0.73; NGC 5236: 0.50 vs 0.52; NGC 5194: 0.67 vs 0.70; NGC 3521: 0.79 vs 0.69), and even the larger separation for NGC 3621 (0.81 vs 0.60) may be within about 2σ. The authors should provide bootstrap or permutation confidence intervals for the difference, report the number of independent pixels per galaxy, and either drop or explicitly de-prioritize classifications that are not statistically separable.
  2. [§3.3.2, Eq. (7)] The chi-square p-value is interpreted in the opposite direction from standard usage. With the conventional definition, p<0.05 means the data are unlikely under Utomo's model (poor agreement), while p>0.05 means the data are consistent with the model (no rejection). The paper states that p<0.05 indicates that the observed relationship aligns with the trend expected by Utomo et al. and that p>0.05 implies the assumption of young-star heating does not hold. If a non-standard definition (e.g., p = P(χ2 < observed)) is intended, it must be stated explicitly; otherwise the conclusion that about 72% of the sample are not uniquely young-star heated is reversed under the standard interpretation: 13 of 18 galaxies would instead be consistent with the young-star-only model, and the agreement between Methods 1 and 2 would drop dramatically. The same inversion appears in Section 3.1, where p ≤ 0.001 is described as indicating a very good fit.
  3. [§3.3.2 and §4] The Method 2 test is conditional on the entire Utomo et al. (2019) assumption chain: L_IR arises entirely from reprocessed young stellar radiation, the pixel-by-pixel Kennicutt-Schmidt slope is fixed at n = 2.19 from Casasola et al. (2022) at 3.4 kpc resolution, the CO-to-H2 conversion factor is constant, Σ_gas is proportional to Σ_dust, and the dust is optically thin and in thermal equilibrium. The paper acknowledges in Section 4 that the KS slope varies galaxy by galaxy and with resolution, and it notes that X_CO and the dust-to-gas ratio vary. Under these violations, the p-value no longer isolates young-star heating; deviations from the predicted relation can be produced by any failed proportionality step. The authors should quantify how the YS/ES classifications change with n, beta, X_CO, and the Σ_dust threshold, or explicitly state that the Method 2 conclusions are conditional on these assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The exponent in Eq. (1) appears as a broken or misformatted expression in the manuscript; it should read T_dust = T0 U^(1/(4+β)).
  2. [§3.3.1] The statement that the r coefficients range from moderate to high is inaccurate given Table 4, which includes r = 0.18 (weak by the paper's own definition) and r = 0.36 (moderate); the text should say the range is weak to high.
  3. [Fig. B.1 caption] The caption of Fig. B.1 says 'already displayed in Fig. 1' but should reference Fig. 6 (or the main-text figure showing NGC 3621 and NGC 5055).
  4. [§3.3.2] The description of the chi-square test does not specify how the normalization constant A in Eq. (7) is determined, whether it is fitted as a free parameter or fixed, and what uncertainty is propagated into the p-value; this should be stated for reproducibility.
  5. [Table 4] The table would be more informative if it reported the number of independent 36-arcsec pixels used for each galaxy, since the statistical significance of both the correlation coefficients and the p-values depends on this number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical two-method comparison, and the cited KS-slope value is an external measurement with openly discussed limitations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that both young and evolved stars heat cold dust, with galaxy-to-galaxy variation, is an empirical comparison rather than a derivation. Method 1 compares weighted Pearson correlations of Tdust with SigmaSFR and SigmaMstar; this is a direct observational ranking with no parameter fitted to the other variable, so the 56%/44% split is a measurement, not a construction. Method 2 tests the observed Tdust-Sigma_dust relation against the Utomo et al. (2019) expectation, Eq. 7, with a slope fixed by beta=1.79 and n=2.19 from Casasola et al. (2022). The KS slope is not fitted to the Tdust-Sigma_dust data being tested, so the p-value outcome is not forced by construction. Although n=2.19 comes from a paper with substantial author overlap, it is an externally published empirical measurement with stated assumptions that do not include the Tdust-Sigma_dust relation, and Section 4 explicitly concedes that the KS slope varies galaxy-by-galaxy and with resolution, undermining any claim that the value is smuggled in as an authoritative external constraint. The acknowledged Tdust-Sigma_dust SED-fitting degeneracy is addressed with S/N and Sigma_dust cuts; whether this is fully adequate is a statistical robustness issue, not circularity. Likewise, the apparent reversal of the p-value interpretation (treating p<0.05 as alignment with the model) is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction. No equation in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The paper also compares its conclusions with external radiative-transfer studies for several sample galaxies, providing independent context. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the ledger entries are the fitted constants and domain assumptions inherited from the C17 data products and the Utomo method. The most consequential are the KS slope n = 2.19 (taken from an overlapping-author paper derived on the same sample), the fixed beta = 1.79, and the linear dust-to-gas assumption, all of which the authors themselves list in Section 4 as sources of the discrepancies between the two methods.

free parameters (5)
  • KS slope n = 2.19
    Used in Eq. (7) for the expected Tdust-SigmaDust relation. Taken from Casasola et al. (2022), derived pixel-by-pixel on the same galaxy sample at 3.4 kpc resolution. The paper notes in Section 4 that the slope varies galaxy by galaxy and with resolution.
  • Dust emissivity index beta = 1.79
    Adopted from the THEMIS model and fixed throughout (Section 2.1, Eq. 1 and Eq. 7). Variations in beta change Tdust and the expected slope (4+beta); the paper acknowledges the known beta-Tdust anticorrelation but does not propagate it into the method-2 test.
  • T0 (solar-neighborhood dust temperature) = 18.3 K
    Normalization in Eq. (1) converting ISRF strength U to Tdust, taken from Mathis et al. (1983). It scales all Tdust values and enters the SED fitting.
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor X_CO = 2e20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1
    Used to estimate gas mass in the KS relation underlying the Utomo method (Section 3.3.2). Taken from Bolatto et al. (2013) as a constant; the paper lists its variability as a cause of the method-2 discrepancies.
  • Sigma_dust threshold = log Sigma_dust [M_sun/pc2] > -1.5
    Ad hoc cut to exclude low-SigmaDust pixels; chosen to avoid extra uncertainties, but the choice is not derived from a stated criterion and affects which pixels enter the chi-square test.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dust is in thermal equilibrium and optically thin, so L_IR is proportional to M_dust T^(4+beta) (Eq. 5-6).
    Stated in Section 3.3.2 as the basis of the Utomo method. In reality a single Tdust per pixel is assigned (Section 2.1), which is an approximation for a resolution element containing multiple heating sources.
  • domain assumption The total infrared luminosity L_IR is entirely reprocessed radiation from young stars, so Sigma_LIR is proportional to Sigma_SFR.
    The core assumption of the Utomo et al. (2019) method quoted in Section 3.3.2. The paper tests whether the data are consistent with this, so it is the hypothesis under test rather than a free parameter, but the test's interpretation depends on it.
  • domain assumption Sigma_gas is linearly proportional to Sigma_dust (constant dust-to-gas ratio).
    Invoked in Section 3.3.2 to derive Eq. (4). The paper concedes in Section 4 that the dust-to-gas mass ratio varies with metallicity, grain growth, and destruction.
  • domain assumption SFR is traced by the Bigiel et al. (2008) calibration combining GALEX-FUV and WISE 22 micron (Eq. 2).
    Standard calibration, but it inherits the IMF assumption of Calzetti et al. (2007) and the dust-correction assumption that 22 micron emission traces obscured recent star formation. Used for all Sigma_SFR maps.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass is traced by ICA-separated IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 micron emission (Querejeta et al. 2015).
    Section 2.2. This is a well-established technique but depends on the assumption that the old stellar population dominates these bands after ICA decomposition.
  • domain assumption The Sersic function (Eq. 3) adequately describes Tdust radial profiles, and the median profile fit is valid with reduced chi-squared 0.984.
    Section 3.1. The fit quality claim is made for the average profile only; per-galaxy fits in Table 2 do not have reported chi-squared or p-values, so the appropriateness of the Sersic form is not demonstrated for each galaxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of young and evolved stars in the heating of dust in local galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMFP3YIX

@misc{pith2026250712275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of young and evolved stars in the heating of dust in local galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMFP3YIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12275}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Dust is a fundamental component of the interstellar medium (ISM) and plays a critical role in galaxy evolution. Dust grains influence the ISM by cooling the gas, altering its chemistry, and absorbing stellar radiation, re-emitting it at longer wavelengths in the far-infrared (FIR) and sub-millimeter regimes. The cold dust component, which dominates the dust mass, is primarily heated by stellar radiation, including both young, massive stars and the diffuse emission from older stars. Understanding dust heating is essential to trace the connection between stellar populations and their environments. Aims. We aim to identify the dominant heating mechanisms of the cold dust in typical nearby spiral galaxies and explore the contributions of young and evolved stars to dust heating. Methods. Using 18 large, face-on spiral galaxies from the DustPedia project, we apply two complementary approaches: (1) correlation analysis between dust temperature (T_dust), SFR surface density (Sigma_SFR), and stellar mass surface density (Sigma_Mstar); and (2) study of the relationship between T_dust and dust mass surface density (Sigma_dust). Results. T_dust peaks at ~24 K in galaxy centers and drops to ~15 K at large radii. Galaxies with and without AGNs show similar T_dust profiles. For ~72% of the sample, both methods agree on the dominant heating source. Overall, we find that both young and evolved stars contribute to dust heating, with their relative roles varying between galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Σdust (left) and Tdust (right) maps of the sample galaxy NGC 3031 (M81) derived according to the prescriptions described in Sect. 2.1. The maps are shown at the SPIRE-500 resolution (36′′), corresponding to 0.6 kpc at the galaxy’s distance. Only regions with signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) > 5 are shown. Draine & Li (2007) approch, assuming most of the dust mass is heated by a single diffused component (U = Umin, in the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tdust radial profiles as a function of the galaxy radius normalized by R25 for some sample galaxies (IC 342, NGC 628, NGC 3031, NGC 2403). Median Tdust values are shown as blue points, with the shaded blue regions indicating the total uncertainties, computed as the quadrature sum of the 16th and 84th percentiles and the modeling uncertainties (see Sect. 3.1). The dashed black line represents the Sérsic profile fit (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The panel a shows the median Tdust radial profile for all galaxies in our sample (blue). The panels b and c display the median Tdust profiles for barred (SAB-SB, purple) and unbarred (orange) galaxies, respectively. The panels d and e show the me￾dian Tdust profiles fo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of the pixel-by-pixel Tdust–ΣSFR (left panels) and Tdust–ΣM∗ (right panels) correlations for two sample galaxies (NGC 2403, NGC 5055). The color bar represents the galaxy radius. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient r (upper left corner) and the sample…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The pixel-by-pixel relation between log Tdust and log Σdust according to Eq. (7) for two sample galaxy (NGC 3621, NGC 5055). Blue points represent the mean values within each bin, with error bars indicating the standard deviation in each bin. The black line corresponds…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pearson correlation coefficient r of the Tdust − ΣSFR re￾lation vs. that of the Tdust − ΣM∗ relation. AGN galaxies are marked with stars, non-AGN galaxies with circles. The galax￾ies are color-coded according to the p-values of the χ 2 test (see Sect. 3.3.2): blue symb…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., et al

    Alonso-Herrero, A., García-Burillo, S., Hönig, S. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141219 7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141219 2021

  2. [2]

    T., Calzetti, D., et al

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Calzetti, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 138 4

    2012

  3. [3]

    T., Gordon, K

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Gordon, K. D., & Sandstrom, K. 2011, PASP, 123, 1218, doi: 10.1086/662219 5

    doi:10.1086/662219 2011

  4. [4]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Inoue, A. K. 2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213, doi: 10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 1

    doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 2013

  5. [5]

    Baes, M., Verstappen, J., De Looze, I., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 22, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 2 8 http://prima.ipac.caltech.edu Article number, page 12 of 17 Vidhi Tailor et al.: The role of young and evolved stars in the heating of dust in local galaxies

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/22 2011

  6. [6]

    D., Williams, D

    Baldi, R. D., Williams, D. R. A., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2023, VizieR Online Data Catalog: LeMMINGs II e-MERLIN survey of nearby galaxies (Baldi+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J /MNRAS/500/4749. Originally pub- lished in: 2021MNRAS.500.4749B, id: J/MNRAS/500/4749 3

    2023

  7. [7]

    J., Baes, M., Bianchi, S., et al

    Bendo, G. J., Baes, M., Bianchi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1841 2, 12

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1841 2015

  8. [9]

    2013, A&A, 552, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220866 4

    Bianchi, S. 2013, A&A, 552, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220866 4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220866 2013

Show all 117 references
  1. [10]

    2019, A&A, 631, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936314 2

    Bianchi, S., Casasola, V ., Baes, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936314 2

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    2022, A&A, 664, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243930 4

    Bianchi, S., Casasola, V ., Corbelli, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243930 4

    2022 doi

  3. [12]

    Bianchi, S., Giovanardi, C., Smith, M. W. L., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629013 3

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846, doi: 10.1088 /0004- 6256/136/6/2846 4

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846, doi: 10.1088 /0004- 6256/136/6/2846 4

    2008

  5. [14]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041- 8205/730/2/L13 2

    2011 doi

  6. [15]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 9, 11

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 37, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040037 2, 12

    Bonato, M., Baronchelli, I., Casasola, V ., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 37, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040037 2, 12

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    2012, A&A, 540, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118602 2

    Boselli, A., Ciesla, L., Cortese, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118602 2

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    1988, A&A, 196, L17 4

    Brouillet, N., Baudry, A., & Combes, F. 1988, A&A, 196, L17 4

    1988

  10. [20]

    C., Engelbracht, C

    Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 870, doi: 10.1086/520082 5

    2007 doi

  11. [21]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.004 5

    2015 doi

  12. [22]

    2020, A&A, 633, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936665 8

    Casasola, V ., Bianchi, S., De Vis, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936665 8

    2020 doi

  13. [23]

    2022, A&A, 668, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245043 5, 8, 9, 11

    Casasola, V ., Bianchi, S., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245043 5, 8, 9, 11

    2022 doi

  14. [24]

    P., Bianchi, S., et al

    Casasola, V ., Cassarà, L. P., Bianchi, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731020 2, 3, 5

    2017 doi

  15. [25]

    2007, A&A, 473, 771 4

    Casasola, V ., Combes, F., Bettoni, D., & Galletta, G. 2007, A&A, 473, 771 4

    2007

  16. [26]

    K., et al

    Chastenet, J., Sandstrom, K., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a5c 12

    2025 doi

  17. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad373 12

    Chiang, I.-D., Hirashita, H., Chastenet, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad373 12

    2023 doi

  18. [28]

    Clark, C. J. R., Verstocken, S., Bianchi, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731419 2, 5 Compiègne, M., Verstraete, L., Jones, A., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 525, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 3

    2018 doi

  19. [29]

    A., Aniano, G., Engelbracht, C

    Dale, D. A., Aniano, G., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/95 4

    2012 doi

  20. [30]

    Davidge, T. J. 2008, PASP, 120, 1145, doi: 10.1086/593377 4

    2008 doi

  21. [31]

    I., Baes, M., Bianchi, S., et al

    Davies, J. I., Baes, M., Bianchi, S., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 044102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/044102 2 De Looze, I., Fritz, J., Baes, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004- 6361/201424747 2, 12 De Vis, P., Jones, A., Viaene, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A5, do...

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    N., Nesvadba, N

    Dicken, D., Tadhunter, C. N., Nesvadba, N. P. H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5807, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3465 7

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146 /an- nurev.astro.41.011802.0948408 2

    2003 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and In- tergalactic Medium (Princeton University Press), url: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011piim.book.....D 1, 9

    2011

  25. [35]

    Draine, B. T. & Hensley, B. S. 2023, ApJ, 947, 92, doi: 10.3847 /1538- 4357/acca86 3

    2023

  26. [36]

    Draine, B. T. & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055 3, 4

    2007 doi

  27. [38]

    2017, A&A, 604, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731052 7

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731052 7

    2017 doi

  28. [39]

    1987, ApJ, 322, 812, doi: 10.1086/165774 2

    Dwek, E. 1987, ApJ, 322, 812, doi: 10.1086/165774 2

    1987 doi

  29. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa433 8

    Enia, A., Rodighiero, G., Morselli, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa433 8

    2020 doi

  30. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac313 7

    Esposito, F., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac313 7

    2022 doi

  31. [42]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146 /annurev-astro-081811- 125521 6

    2012

  32. [43]

    2015, A&A, 580, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525677 3

    Fanciullo, L., Guillet, V ., Aniano, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525677 3

    2015 doi

  33. [44]

    2006, A&A, 453, 969, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053949 4

    Flagey, N., Boulanger, F., Verstraete, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 969, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053949 4

    2006 doi

  34. [45]

    P., Gear, W

    Ford, G. P., Gear, W. K., Smith, M. W. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/55 5

    2013 doi

  35. [46]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x 7

    Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x 7

    2006

  36. [47]

    2022, Habilitation Thesis, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.01868 2

    Galliano, F. 2022, Habilitation Thesis, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.01868 2

    2022 doi arXiv

  37. [48]

    Galliano, F., Galametz, M., & Jones, A. P. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 673, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051900 2

    2018 doi

  38. [49]

    2021, A&A, 649, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039701 1

    Galliano, F., Nersesian, A., Bianchi, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039701 1

    2021 doi

  39. [50]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2

    2006 doi

  40. [51]

    1989, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Gehrz, R. 1989, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 135, Interstellar Dust, ed. L. J. Alla- mandola & A. G. G. M. Tielens, 445, isbn: 978-94-009-2462-8 1

    1989

  41. [53]

    & Aoyama, S

    Hirashita, H. & Aoyama, S. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2555, doi: 10.1093 /mn- ras/sty2838 1

    2019

  42. [54]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146 /an- nurev.astro.45.051806.110546 7

    2008 arXiv

  43. [55]

    & Salpeter, E

    Hollenbach, D. & Salpeter, E. E. 1971, ApJ, 163, 155, doi: 10.1086/150754 2

    1971 doi

  44. [56]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Sternberg, A., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2023, ApJ, 952, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcfa 2

    2023 doi

  45. [58]

    J., Popescu, C

    Inman, C. J., Popescu, C. C., Rushton, M. T., & Murphy, D. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 118, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2676 12

    2023 doi

  46. [59]

    P., Fanciullo, L., Köhler, M., et al

    Jones, A. P., Fanciullo, L., Köhler, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 3

    2013 doi

  47. [60]

    P., Köhler, M., Ysard, N., Bocchio, M., & Verstraete, L

    Jones, A. P., Köhler, M., Ysard, N., Bocchio, M., & Verstraete, L. 2017, A&A, 602, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630225 2, 3

    2017 doi

  48. [61]

    P., Tielens, A

    Jones, A. P., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 740, doi: 10.1086/177823 1

    1996 doi

  49. [62]

    N., Hine, B., et al

    Kaufman, M., Bash, F. N., Hine, B., et al. 1989, ApJ, 345, 674 4

    1989

  50. [63]

    C., Shetty, R., Stutz, A

    Kelly, B. C., Shetty, R., Stutz, A. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/55 4

    2012 doi

  51. [64]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998b, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588 8

    doi

  52. [65]

    C., Calzetti, D., Walter, F., et al

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Calzetti, D., Walter, F., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 333 2, 5

    2007

  53. [66]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/814/1/9 6 Köhler, M., Jones, A., & Ysard, N

    Kirkpatrick, A., Pope, A., Sajina, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/814/1/9 6 Köhler, M., Jones, A., & Ysard, N. 2014, A&A, 565, L9, doi: 10.1051 /0004- 6361/201423985 3

    2015 doi

  54. [67]

    2017, A&A, 602, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629955 7 Lara-López, M

    Lanzuisi, G., Delvecchio, I., Berta, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629955 7 Lara-López, M. A., Zinchenko, I. A., Pilyugin, L. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 42 12

    2017 doi

  55. [68]

    & Draine, B

    Li, A. & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 554, 778, doi: 10.1086/323147 2

    2001 doi

  56. [69]

    Macchetto, F. D. & Chiaberge, M. 2007, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 238, Black Holes from Stars to Galaxies – Across the Range of Masses, ed. V . Karas & G. Matt, 273–276, doi: 10.1017/S1743921307005121 7

    2007 doi

  57. [70]

    S., Mezger, P

    Mathis, J. S., Mezger, P. G., & Panagia, N. 1983, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 128, 212, url: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...128..212M 3, 4

    1983

  58. [71]

    J., Zijlstra, A

    Matsuura, M., Barlow, M. J., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 918, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14743.x 1

    2009

  59. [73]

    C., Rosenthal, L

    McKinney, J., Hayward, C. C., Rosenthal, L. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac185f 6

    2021 doi

  60. [74]

    E., Schinnerer, E., Knapen, J

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., Knapen, J. H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/17 4

    2012 doi

  61. [75]

    B., Steiner, J

    Menezes, R. B., Steiner, J. E., Ricci, T. V ., & da Silva, P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1235 3

    2022 doi

  62. [76]

    C., et al

    Momose, R., Koda, J., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L13 5

    2013 doi

  63. [77]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1811 8

    Morselli, L., Rodighiero, G., Enia, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1811 8

    2020 doi

  64. [79]

    R., Pannella, M., Daddi, E., et al

    Mullaney, J. R., Pannella, M., Daddi, E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 95, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19675.x 7

    2012

  65. [80]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S15, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz015 5

    Muraoka, K., Sorai, K., Miyamoto, Y ., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S15, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz015 5

    2019 doi

  66. [81]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1175 1 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Nanni, A., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., & Girardi, L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1175 1 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa55091-25

    2013 doi

  67. [82]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2348 1

    Nanni, A., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., & Girardi, L. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2348 1

    2014 doi

  68. [83]

    R., Ostriker, E

    Narayanan, D., Krumholz, M. R., Ostriker, E. C., & Hernquist, L. 2012, MN- RAS, 421, 3127 9

    2012

  69. [84]

    M., et al

    Nersesian, A., Dobbels, W., Xilouris, E. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1984 2

    2021 doi

  70. [85]

    2020a, A&A, 637, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936176 2, 12

    Nersesian, A., Verstocken, S., Viaene, S., et al. 2020a, A&A, 637, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936176 2, 12

    doi

  71. [86]

    2020b, A&A, 643, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038939 2, 5, 12

    Nersesian, A., Viaene, S., De Looze, I., et al. 2020b, A&A, 643, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038939 2, 5, 12

    doi

  72. [87]

    M., Bianchi, S., et al

    Nersesian, A., Xilouris, E. M., Bianchi, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935118 2, 11

    2019 doi

  73. [88]

    2006, A&A, 453, 459 4

    Nieten, C., Neininger, N., Guélin, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 459 4

    2006

  74. [89]

    M., Elbaz, D., et al

    Orellana, G., Nagar, N. M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629009 2

    2017 doi

  75. [90]

    D., Xilouris, E

    Paspaliaris, E. D., Xilouris, E. M., Nersesian, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244796 12

    2023 doi

  76. [91]

    & Prieto, J

    Pejcha, O. & Prieto, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 799, 215, doi: 10.1088 /0004- 637X/799/2/215 3

    2015

  77. [92]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111 /j.1365- 2966.2004.07591.x 11

    2004

  78. [93]

    L., Riedinger, J

    Pilbratt, G. L., Riedinger, J. R., Passvogel, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759 2

    2010 doi

  79. [94]

    2021, A&A, 653, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040258 2

    Pozzi, F., Calura, F., Fudamoto, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040258 2

    2021 doi

  80. [95]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 1909, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21015.x 7

    Pozzi, F., Vignali, C., Gruppioni, C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1909, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21015.x 7

    2012

  81. [96]

    C., Rushton, M

    Pricopi, D., Popescu, C. C., Rushton, M. T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 56, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2809 12

    2025 doi

  82. [97]

    E., Schinnerer, E., et al

    Querejeta, M., Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/5 4

    2015 doi

  83. [98]

    D., Wong, T., et al

    Rahman, N., Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/72 5 Rémy-Ruyer, A., Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321602 4, 11 Rémy-Ruyer, A., Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 582...

    2011 doi

  84. [99]

    T., Popescu, C

    Rushton, M. T., Popescu, C. C., Inman, C., Natale, G., & Pricopi, D. 2022, MN- RAS, 514, 113, doi: 110.1093/mnras/stac1165 12

    2022

  85. [100]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538- 4365/aaa8e5 3

    Sabbi, E., Calzetti, D., Ubeda, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538- 4365/aaa8e5 3

    2018 doi

  86. [101]

    2001, AJ, 122, 1319 4

    Sakamoto, K., Fukuda, H., Wada, K., & Habe, A. 2001, AJ, 122, 1319 4

    2001

  87. [102]

    J., Shao, L., et al

    Santini, P., Rosario, D. J., Shao, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118266 7

    2012 doi

  88. [103]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614 8

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614 8

    1959 doi

  89. [104]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0 8

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0 8

    1963 doi

  90. [105]

    2015, A&A, 579, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526105 7

    Schneider, R., Bianchi, S., Valiante, R., Risaliti, G., & Salvadori, S. 2015, A&A, 579, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526105 7

    2015 doi

  91. [106]

    Smith, M. W. L., Eales, S. A., Gomez, H. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/40 2

    2012 doi

  92. [107]

    Smith, M. W. L., Vlahakis, C., Baes, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014584 2

    2010 doi

  93. [108]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730 4

    1987

  94. [109]

    D., Dopita, M

    Thomas, A. D., Dopita, M. A., Shastri, P., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa855a 3

    2017 doi

  95. [110]

    & Shioya, Y

    Tosaki, T. & Shioya, Y . 1997, ApJ, 484, 664 4

    1997

  96. [111]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50 3

    2016 doi

  97. [112]

    K., Sandstrom, K

    Utomo, D., Chiang, I.-D., Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K. M., & Chastenet, J. 2019, ApJ, 874, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05d3 8, 10

    2019 doi

  98. [113]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 2282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3338 1

    Ramirez, L. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3338 1

    2018 doi

  99. [114]

    2020, A&A, 637, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935770 2, 12

    Verstocken, S., Nersesian, A., Baes, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935770 2, 12

    2020 doi

  100. [115]

    2017, Astronomy and Computing, 20, 16, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.05.003 5

    Verstocken, S., Van De Putte, D., Camps, P., & Baes, M. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 20, 16, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.05.003 5

    2017 doi

  101. [116]

    2017, A&A, 599, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004- 6361/201629251 2, 12

    Viaene, S., Baes, M., Tamm, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004- 6361/201629251 2, 12

    2017 doi

  102. [117]

    2014, A&A, 567, A71, doi: 10.1051 /0004- 6361/201423534 2

    Viaene, S., Fritz, J., Baes, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A71, doi: 10.1051 /0004- 6361/201423534 2

    2014

  103. [118]

    2020, A&A, 638, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037476 6, 7

    Viaene, S., Nersesian, A., Fritz, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037476 6, 7

    2020 doi

  104. [119]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 5

    2020 doi

  105. [120]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1, doi: 10.1086/422992 2

    2004 doi

  106. [121]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2

    2010 doi

  107. [122]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa119 5

    Yajima, Y ., Sorai, K., Miyamoto, Y ., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa119 5

    2021 doi

  108. [123]

    P., Guillet, V ., et al

    Ysard, N., Jones, A. P., Guillet, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348391 3

    2024 doi

  109. [124]

    Ysard, N., Köhler, M., Jones, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425523 3 Article number, page 14 of 17 Vidhi Tailor et al.: The role of young and evolved stars in the heating of dust in local galaxies Appendix A: Images of Radial Profiles Fig. A.1: Tdu...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.