Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Discovery of a Pair of Galaxies with Both Hosting X-ray Binary Candidates at $z=2.544$

T0 review · 5 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 This paper argues that the X-ray emission from both galaxies in the UDF3/UDF3-2 pair at z=2.544 is dominated by high-mass X-ray binaries, making them the highest-redshift non-AGN galaxies with individual X-ray detections.

desk verdict A worthwhile candidate paper whose 'two individual X-ray detections' claim rides on an under-explained deblend; the UDF3 HMXB case is plausible, UDF3-2 is not yet secure, and the SFR/metallicity inconsistencies need a round of fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23230 v1 pith:ZDNH44QQ submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.GA

Sijia Cai , Zheng Cai , Jianwei Lyu , Yunjing Wu , Xiaojing Lin , Mingyu Li , Junjie Mao , Jiayi Chen
show 1 more author
Pengjun Lu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords High-redshiftgalaxiesX-raybinarystarsHigh-massMetallicityChandraDeepFieldAGNdiscriminationStarformationrateGalaxypairs
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 reports a spectroscopic galaxy pair, UDF3 and UDF3-2, at $z=2.544$, with X-ray emission detected individually in each member by deep X-ray imaging. Combining emission-line diagnostics and spectral energy distribution fitting, the authors argue that neither galaxy hosts a dominant active galactic nucleus: the ionized lines sit in the star-forming region of the BPT diagram, the standard emission-line diagnostic that separates star formation from AGN ionization, and the mid-infrared light is fully accounted for by starlight-heated dust. They conclude that the X-rays are powered by high-mass X-ray binaries, with 2--10 keV luminosities of $L_X=(1.43\pm0.40)\times10^{42}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for UDF3 and $L_X=(0.40\pm0.12)\times10^{42}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for UDF3-2. If correct, this is the highest-redshift non-AGN galaxy pair with individual X-ray detections, and it suggests that star-forming galaxies contribute more to cosmic X-ray output at $z\sim2.5$ than previously credited.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three mutually reinforcing diagnostics. The BPT diagram, the standard emission-line separator between star-forming galaxies and AGN, uses [N II]/H$\alpha$ versus [O III]/H$\beta$ and [S II]/H$\alpha$ versus [O III]/H$\beta$ to place UDF3 in the H II region-like star-forming locus. SED fitting with stellar, dust-emission, and AGN-torus templates finds $f_{\rm AGN}<10^{-6}$, so the infrared radiation is fully accounted for by dust heated by young stars. The specific star formation rate (star formation per unit stellar mass), $\mathrm{sSFR}>10^{-8.5}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, selects HMXBs as the relevant X-ray population, and a forward 2D Gaussian model of the X-ray image deblends the close pair into the two individual X-ray luminosities compared with the $L_X$/SFR--$z$ relation.

What would settle it

Re-model the 7 Ms X-ray image with a simultaneous two-point-source fit, or observe the pair with a deeper X-ray exposure: if UDF3-2's counts fall below a $3\sigma$ excess once UDF3's point spread function is subtracted, the individual HMXB detection claim fails. A high-resolution X-ray spectrum showing an AGN-like power law and iron line, or a radio-loud counterpart, would overturn the non-AGN conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the X-ray emission from both members of the pair is dominated by high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs), compact objects accreting from massive stellar companions, rather than by AGN. The supporting argument combines the BPT line-ratio classification, SED fitting that finds an AGN torus fraction below $10^{-6}$, and specific star formation rates above $10^{-8.5}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, the regime where HMXBs dominate X-ray output. UDF3 is a dusty starburst with a short, intense star formation episode of about 15 Myr, matching the window of peak HMXB formation efficiency; UDF3-2 is a main-sequence star-forming galaxy with a steadier history. After forward 2D Gaussian deblending of the X-ray image, the individual 2--10 keV luminosities are $L_X=(1.43\pm0.40)\times10^{42}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and $L_X=(0.40\pm0.12)\times10^{42}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$. The authors conclude that the pair is the highest-redshift star-forming galaxy pair with X-ray detected in individual members, with UDF3 lying about 0.5 dex below the $L_X$/SFR--$z$ relation while UDF3-2 agrees with it.

Load-bearing premise

The claim hinges on the assumption that the X-ray counts assigned to the fainter galaxy UDF3-2 are a genuine, separately detectable source, not a blending artifact of its brighter neighbor UDF3, which lies only about 1.8 arcseconds away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the HMXB interpretation is right, UDF3 and UDF3-2 become the highest-redshift non-AGN galaxies with individual X-ray detections, at $z=2.544$.
  • UDF3's $\approx0.5$ dex deficit below the $L_X$/SFR--$z$ relation becomes a direct observable of how starburst-driven metal enrichment suppresses Roche-lobe overflow and HMXB luminosity.
  • X-ray luminosity thresholds commonly used to flag AGN (such as $L_X>3\times10^{42}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$) will misclassify starbursting galaxies at high redshift unless XRB population constraints are included.
  • Deep X-ray surveys combined with infrared space observatories can build a statistical sample of XRB-dominated galaxies at $z>2$, tightening the link between cosmic star formation and the X-ray background.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the observed spread in $\log(L_X/\mathrm{SFR})$ at fixed redshift may have two drivers, metallicity and starburst phase, so stacking analyses that average over both could wash out the predicted (1+z) enhancement.
  • Editorial inference: a clean test would be X-ray spectral hardness ratios for the pair; HMXB-dominated emission should show a softer, cutoff-like spectrum than AGN power laws, checkable with future deeper X-ray observations.
  • Editorial inference: if interacting pairs preferentially host such HMXB-dominated X-rays, merger rate evolution could modulate the $L_X$/SFR--$z$ relation independently of metallicity, complicating its use as a pure metallicity indicator.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same BPT-plus-SED exclusion to existing deep X-ray fields should yield more X-ray-bright, AGN-free galaxies at $z>2$, raising the estimated XRB contribution to the cosmic X-ray background.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of a galaxy pair (UDF3 and UDF3-2) at z = 2.544 in GOODS-S, based on JWST/NIRSpec spectra for UDF3, VANDELS absorption-line spectroscopy for UDF3-2, Chandra 7 Ms X-ray imaging, and multi-wavelength photometry from HST, JWST, MIRI, ALMA, and VLA. The central claims are that both galaxies individually exhibit X-ray emission dominated by high-mass X-ray binaries rather than AGN, with 2–10 keV luminosities of (1.43 ± 0.40) × 10^42 erg/s and (0.40 ± 0.12) × 10^42 erg/s, respectively, and that they constitute the highest-redshift non-AGN galaxies with individual X-ray detections reported to date. The authors use a BPT diagram for UDF3, SED fitting with Prospector, and a comparison of LX/SFR with redshift-dependent relations to support the HMXB interpretation. A secondary claim is that UDF3 lies approximately 0.5 dex below the LX/SFR–z relation, attributed to rapid starburst and metallicity effects.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this paper would provide rare, individual detections of X-ray binaries in galaxies near the peak of cosmic star formation, with implications for the LX/SFR relation, HMXB formation efficiency, and the unresolved cosmic X-ray background. The multi-wavelength data set is rich and the authors make a reasonable effort to cross-check the SED-derived properties with a non-parametric SFH and an H-alpha-based SFR. The paper is also commendable for using public archival data and for comparing against established LX/SFR–z relations. However, the significance rests heavily on two pillars: (1) the deblending of the two Chandra sources separated by only ~1.8 arcsec, and (2) the exclusion of AGN in UDF3-2, which lacks any emission-line diagnostics. Both pillars currently have gaps that could change the conclusions, so the significance is conditional on those issues being resolved.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The individual X-ray detection of UDF3-2 is not demonstrated. The text states that "both sources show >3σ detections" in the full-band image, but the only quantitative information provided is the combined 0.5–7 keV flux, the combined 0.5–2 keV flux, and a joint photon index. The individual luminosities are then said to come from "forward 2D Gaussian modeling," but no details are given about the PSF model, the number of components, whether source positions were free or fixed, the per-component detection significance, or any comparison against a single-source model. Table 2 lists no Chandra counterpart (XID '-') for UDF3-2 in the Luo et al. (2016) 7 Ms catalog, and the two sources are separated by only ~1.8 arcsec, where the Chandra PSF wings are non-negligible. Since the claim that both galaxies host X-ray binaries and the "individual detections" in the title and abstract depend entirely on this deblending, the authors must provide a more rigorous justification: per-source significance maps or Bayesian posterior probabilities, a two-source versus one-source likelihood test, and a treatment of systematic uncertainties from the PSF model and photon index.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Table 1] The claim that "the contribution from the AGN dust torus is negligible, with fAGN < 10^-6" is not supported by the reported posterior values in Table 1. The table gives log fagn = -6.2+0.3-0.5 for UDF3 and -8.6+4.3-4.3 for UDF3-2. The 84th percentile upper limits are therefore approximately log fagn ≈ -5.9 (≈1.3 × 10^-6) for UDF3 and ≈ -4.3 (≈5 × 10^-5) for UDF3-2. These bounds are not below 10^-6, especially for UDF3-2, whose AGN fraction posterior is extremely broad. Because UDF3-2 lacks BPT or other emission-line diagnostics, its non-AGN classification rests entirely on this photometric SED decomposition. The authors should quote the actual upper limits (e.g., 90% or 95% credible intervals) and discuss the implications of an AGN fraction as high as ~10^-4 for the interpretation of the X-ray emission.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Figure 4] The reduced chi-square of the SED fit for UDF3 is reported as 10.2 in Figure 4, indicating a poor fit. The authors attribute the discrepancies to incomplete PAH modeling in the Draine & Li (2007) model, but the derived SFR of 529 M_sun/yr and stellar mass are nevertheless used as input to the LX/SFR comparison and the claimed 0.5 dex offset. A reduced chi-square of 10 means the model is not a statistically acceptable description of the photometry, so the posterior-derived parameters and their uncertainties are not reliable as quoted. The authors should either improve the SED modeling to achieve an acceptable fit or quantify how the fit residuals propagate into the SFR and hence into the LX/SFR offset. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's central interpretation of UDF3's X-ray properties.
  4. [Section 4.3] The H-alpha-based SFR of 153 ± 69 M_sun/yr is about 0.5 dex lower than the SED-based SFR of 529 M_sun/yr, yet the paper adopts the SED SFR for the LX/SFR comparison and claims that UDF3 lies approximately 0.5 dex below the relation. The discrepancy is acknowledged but not reconciled; the text moves from the H-alpha SFR to the conclusion that systematic uncertainties remain, without a quantitative explanation. If the true SFR is closer to the H-alpha value—which may be a more direct tracer of recent star formation—the offset from the LX/SFR–z relation would be substantially reduced and the physical interpretation (metal enrichment suppressing Roche-lobe overflow efficiency) would no longer be strongly supported. The authors need to discuss the different timescales (10 Myr for SED, instantaneous for H-alpha), extinction corrections, aperture effects, and the systematic uncertainties in the Kennicutt (1998) calibration, and show explicitly how the LX/SFR offset changes if the H-alpha SFR is adopted.
  5. [Section 4.1] The BPT diagram analysis is performed only for UDF3, since UDF3-2 has no detected emission lines. The abstract states that "the ionized emission lines, which are primarily driven by H II region-like processes" applies to the pair, but this is only directly verified for UDF3. For UDF3-2, the non-AGN conclusion rests on the SED decomposition (see the comment on fagn) and on the LX/SFR scaling. The paper should explicitly state that the non-AGN classification of UDF3-2 is photometric and thus model-dependent, and it should discuss the possibility that a weak AGN or a low-luminosity AGN could contribute to the claimed 0.40 × 10^42 erg/s X-ray luminosity without leaving a clear imprint in the available photometry or the unresolved X-ray spectrum.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The quoted intrinsic 0.5–7 keV luminosity of 4.55+1.41-1.22 × 10^42 erg/s would benefit from a statement of the assumed luminosity distance or the explicit cosmology used for the k-correction; the cosmology is given in the introduction but not repeated here.
  2. [Table 1] The units for the parameter 'tau' are listed as 'Gyr^-1' in the table and in the text description, but the e-folding time of a delayed-tau SFH should be in Gyr, not Gyr^-1. Please correct this typographical error.
  3. [Figure 4] The label '2 r = 10.2' in the figure is nonstandard; this presumably denotes the reduced chi-square, which is usually written as χ²_ν or χ²_red. Please use standard notation.
  4. [Section 4.3] The quoted 1σ uncertainties on log(LX/SFR) for UDF3 (±0.2 dex) appear underestimated given the reported LX uncertainty of ±28% and SFR uncertainty of +64/-88 (≈12-17%); simple error propagation yields roughly ±0.3 dex. Please check the error propagation.
  5. [Appendix] There is a typo: 'tabel 3' should be 'Table 3'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray binary interpretation rests on external sSFR and LX/SFR calibrations plus independent BPT and SED AGN exclusion, while the deblending of UDF3-2 is a measurement robustness issue rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The paper measures the joint Chandra X-ray flux and photon index, then deblends via forward 2D Gaussian modeling to obtain per-galaxy X-ray luminosities; these are data products, not assumed conclusions. The SFR and sSFR come from independent Prospector SED fitting, and the conclusion that high-mass XRBs dominate is supported by the literature threshold sSFR > 1e-10 yr^-1 (Lehmer et al. 2010, 2019) plus the absence of AGN signatures from the BPT diagram and a negligible AGN fraction from SED fitting (fAGN < 1e-6). The LX/SFR comparison uses external benchmarks (Lehmer et al. 2016, Aird et al. 2016, Fornasini et al. 2019) rather than the same fitted parameters. The only self-citations (Lyu et al. 2022, 2024) concern PAH modeling details and general motivation and are not load-bearing. The potential weakness that UDF3-2 lacks a counterpart in the Luo et al. 7 Ms catalog and is only ~1.8 arcsec from UDF3 is a statistical and deblending robustness risk in the individual-detection claim, but it is not circular: the individual luminosities are outputs of a forward model, not inputs to the physical conclusion. No equation reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

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

The central XRB interpretation rests on a chain of fitted quantities: X-ray luminosity from a deblended power-law photon index, SFR and age from an SED fit with a poor reduced chi-square, and a literature mapping from sSFR to HMXB dominance. No new physical entities are introduced. The oxygen abundance, used in the metallicity discussion, appears to be numerically inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (1)-(2) and line fluxes.

free parameters (6)
  • SFR (UDF3) = 529 +64/-88 Msun/yr
    Derived from Prospector SED fit with delayed-tau SFH; H-alpha gives 153+/-69 Msun/yr, a factor 3.5 discrepancy.
  • SFR (UDF3-2) = 34 +6/-6 Msun/yr
    Derived from SED fit; no independent H-alpha check is available.
  • Stellar age tage (UDF3) = 0.015 +0.003/-0.001 Gyr
    Fitted delayed-tau SFH age; supports the recent-starburst timescale argument.
  • dust2 (UDF3) = 2.0 +/-0.1
    Optical depth at 5500 A from SED; implies AV~2.2 mag, compared with Balmer-decrement AV=1.9+/-0.4.
  • log fagn (UDF3 and UDF3-2) = -6.2 and -8.6
    AGN fraction from Nenkova torus fit; used to claim AGN contribution is negligible.
  • X-ray photon index Gamma = 2.44
    Adopted for power-law SED conversion from 0.5-7 keV to 2-10 keV; no X-ray spectral fit is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination with Halpha/Hbeta = 2.86
    Used in Section 3.1 to convert the Balmer decrement into AV=1.9+/-0.4 for UDF3.
  • domain assumption The 0.5-7 keV to 2-10 keV conversion assumes a single power law with photon index Gamma=2.44
    Used in Section 2.2 to derive intrinsic X-ray luminosities; no direct X-ray spectral fit is presented.
  • domain assumption High specific SFR (above 1e-10 per year) implies HMXBs dominate the X-ray emission
    Cited from Lehmer et al. (2010, 2019) in Sections 4.2 and 4.3; this mapping underpins the XRB interpretation.
  • domain assumption The delayed-tau SFH and FSPS/Draine-Li/Nenkova templates correctly model the galaxies' SEDs
    Prospector fit in Section 3.3; the UDF3 fit has reduced chi-square about 10.2, so the adequacy of this assumption is in question.
  • domain assumption BPT classification boundaries remain valid at z=2.5 despite known metallicity shifts
    Section 4.1 says the high-redshift boundary shift does not affect UDF3's classification; this relies on literature calibrations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of a Pair of Galaxies with Both Hosting X-ray Binary Candidates at $z=2.544$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDNH44QQ

@misc{pith2026250723230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of a Pair of Galaxies with Both Hosting X-ray Binary Candidates at $z=2.544$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDNH44QQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23230}
}
abstract

Among high-redshift galaxies, aside from active galactic nuclei (AGNs), X-ray binaries (XRBs) can be significant sources of X-ray emission. XRBs play a crucial role in galaxy evolution, reflecting the stellar populations of galaxies and regulating star formation through feedback, thereby shaping galaxy structure. In this study, we report a spectroscopically confirmed X-ray emitting galaxy pair (UDF3 and UDF3-2) at $z = 2.544$. By combining multi-wavelength observations from JWST/NIRSpec MSA spectra, JWST/NIRCam and MIRI imaging, Chandra, HST, VLT, ALMA, and VLA, we analyze the ionized emission lines, which are primarily driven by H II region-like processes. Additionally, we find that the mid-infrared radiation can be fully attributed to dust emission from galaxy themselves. Our results indicate that the X-ray emission from these two galaxies is dominated by high-mass XRBs, with luminosities of $L_X= (1.43\pm0.40) \times 10^{42} \, \text{erg} \, \text{s}^{-1}$ for UDF3, and $(0.40\pm0.12) \times 10^{42} \, \text{erg} \, \text{s}^{-1}$ for UDF3-2. Furthermore, we measure the star formation rate (SFR) of $529_{-88}^{+64}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for UDF3, placing it $\approx$ 0.5 dex below the $L_X$/SFR-$z$ relation. This offset reflects the redshift-dependent enhancement of $L_X$/SFR-$z$ relation, which is influenced by metallicity and serves as a key observable for XRB evolution. In contrast, UDF3-2, with the SFR of $34_{-6}^{+6}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, aligns well with the $L_X$/SFR-$z$ relation. This galaxy pair represents the highest-redshift non-AGN-dominated galaxies with individual X-ray detections reported to date. This finding suggests that the contribution of XRBs to galaxy X-ray emission at high redshift may be underestimated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RGB and multi-band images of galaxies UDF3 and UDF3-2, each with a cutout size of 5′′ × 5 ′′ and a pixel scale of 0.05′′/pixel. (a) RGB composite image created using the F444W, F277W, and F115W filters. (b) Full-band (0.5–7 keV) Chandra X-ray image (0.5 ′′/pixel) with [2,3,4,5]σ brightness contours overlaid on the JWST/NIRCam F444W filter image. (c–i) NIRCam images in various filters, each smoothed with a 1σ Gaussia… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top three panels show the NIRSpec spectra of UDF3 from the DJA dataset, with the upper panel showing the prism spectrum, and the middle two panels displaying the grating spectra from G235M/F170LP and G395M/F290LP. We only show the emission line regions for clearer visualization of the emission line flux measurements described in Section 3.1. The yellow curve represents the power-law fit to the continuum, and the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The BPT diagram, with the UDF3 plotted as blue filled circle and 1σ error bar. The solid black lines show the maximum starburst boundaries from Kewley et al. (2001), while the dashed black lines in the left panel show the empir￾ical maximum starburst line from Kauffmann et al. (2003), and the right panel display the Seyfert-LINER separation lines from Kewley et al. (2006). of grain mass in PAHs (duste qpah), (9) the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SED fitting of the two galaxies. The red hexagons, circles, and diamonds represent the photometric data from HST, NIRCam, and MIRI, respectively. The blue solid line and square markers denote the model spectrum and model photometry predicted by the SED fitting. The gre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution of LX/SFR with redshift. The galaxy pair UDF3 and UDF3-2 are represented by star mark￾ers. Additionally, stacked LX/SFR values from previous studies in different redshift bins are marked. The metallic￾ity, indicated by oxygen abundance, is shown in color.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al

    Ade, P. A., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13

    2016

  2. [2]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3390

    Aird, J., Coil, A., & Georgakakis, A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3390

    2016

  3. [3]

    SMILES Initial Data Release: Unveiling the Obscured Universe with MIRI Multi-band Imaging

    Alberts, S., Lyu, J., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15972

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Antoniou, V., & Zezas, A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 528 10 T able 2.Basic Information and Photometry of the Galaxy Pair Galaxy ID JADES ID SMILES ID XID NIRSpec ID V ANDELS ID RA JADES DECJADES UDF3 209117 1271 718 1180-14279 - 53.160609 -27.776249 UDF3-2 209116 1269 - - CDFS015798 53.160157 -27.776414 acs wfc f435w acs...

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    C., Tissera, P

    Artale, M. C., Tissera, P. B., & Pellizza, L. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 3071 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B., G¨ unther, H., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L.,

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Earl, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J.,

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A1

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A1

    work page 2017

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5

    1981

  2. [10]

    R., Lehmer, B

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Lehmer, B. D., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 45

    2012

  3. [11]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 601, L147

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Zezas, A., & Fabbiano, G. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 601, L147

    2004

  4. [12]

    J., Groves, B., & Dopita, M

    Bian, F., Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., & Dopita, M. A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 580

    2020

  5. [13]

    A., Rodriguez, J., & James, J

    Bodaghee, A., Tomsick, J. A., Rodriguez, J., & James, J. B. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 108

    2011

  6. [14]

    M., Popping, G., et al

    Bottrell, C., Yesuf, H. M., Popping, G., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 6506

    2024

  7. [15]

    Brorby, M., Kaaret, P., Prestwich, A., & Mirabel, I. F. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 4081 11

    2016

  8. [16]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A79 Calabr` o, A., Daddi, E., Fensch, J., et al

    Buat, V., Ciesla, L., Boquien, M., Ma lek, K., & Burgarella, D. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A79 Calabr` o, A., Daddi, E., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A98

    2019

  9. [17]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 833

    2010

  10. [18]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 486

    2009

  11. [19]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 50

    Cowie, L., Barger, A., & Hasinger, G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 50

    2012

  12. [20]

    L., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Barger, A

    Cowie, L. L., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Barger, A. J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 106

    2018

  13. [21]

    Das, A., Mesinger, A., Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., & Wise, J. H. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 1166

    2017

  14. [22]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 213

    Dijkstra, M., Gilfanov, M., Loeb, A., & Sunyaev, R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 213

    2012

  15. [23]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 810

    2007

  16. [24]

    J., Biggs, A

    Dunlop, J., McLure, R. J., Biggs, A. D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 861

    2017

  17. [25]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02465

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 3986

    Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Dayal, P. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 3986

    2023

  19. [27]

    M., Civano, F., & Suh, H

    Fornasini, F. M., Civano, F., & Suh, H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 771

    2020

  20. [28]

    M., Kriek, M., Sanders, R

    Fornasini, F. M., Kriek, M., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 65

    2019

  21. [29]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 41

    Fragos, T., Lehmer, B., Tremmel, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 41

    2013

  22. [30]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 620, A152

    Franco, M., Elbaz, D., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 620, A152

    2018

  23. [31]

    2005, Nature, 436, 819

    Gallo, E., Fender, R., Kaiser, C., et al. 2005, Nature, 436, 819

    2005

  24. [32]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 80

    Garg, P., Narayanan, D., Byler, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 80

    2022

  25. [33]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A150

    Garilli, B., McLure, R., Pentericci, L., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A150

    2021

  26. [34]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 146

    Gilfanov, M. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 146

    2004

  27. [35]

    2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer), 1–38

    Gilfanov, M., Fabbiano, G., Lehmer, B., & Zezas, A. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer), 1–38

    2023

  28. [36]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 793 G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F

    Grimm, H.-J., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 793 G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 2050

    2003

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  30. [38]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 530, L7

    Haskell, P., Das, S., Smith, D., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 530, L7

    2024

  31. [39]

    2024, Preprint at https://arxiv

    Heintz, K., et al. 2024, Preprint at https://arxiv. org/abs/2404.02211

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90 Iben Jr, I., Tutukov, A. V., & Yungelson, L. R. 1995, Astrophysical Journal Supplement v. 100, p. 217, 100, 217

    2007

  33. [41]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22

    2021

  34. [42]

    F., Prochaska, J

    Kaplan, K. F., Prochaska, J. X., Herbert-Fort, S., Ellison, S. L., & Dessauges-Zavadsky, M. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122, 619

    2010

  35. [43]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346, 1055 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189

    2003

  36. [44]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121

    Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121

    2001

  37. [45]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 961

    2006

  38. [46]

    J., Maier, C., Yabe, K., et al

    Kewley, L. J., Maier, C., Yabe, K., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 774, L10

    2013

  39. [47]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 775, L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 775, L16

    2013

  40. [48]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    2001

  41. [49]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 559

    Lehmer, B., Alexander, D., Bauer, F., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 559

    2010

  42. [50]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 7

    Lehmer, B., Basu-Zych, A., Mineo, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 7

    2016

  43. [51]

    D., Eufrasio, R

    Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Tzanavaris, P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 3

    2019

  44. [52]

    D., Monson, E

    Lehmer, B. D., Monson, E. B., Eufrasio, R. T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 189

    2024

  45. [53]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 3

    2019

  46. [54]

    H., van den Heuvel, E

    Lewin, W. H., van den Heuvel, E. P., & van Paradijs, J. 1997, X-ray Binaries, Vol. 26 (Cambridge University Press)

    1997

  47. [55]

    M., Jing, Y., & White, S

    Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Jing, Y., & White, S. D. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 385, 1903

    2008

  48. [56]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1984 12

    Linden, T., Kalogera, V., Sepinsky, J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1984 12

    2010

  49. [57]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01358

    Llerena, M., Pentericci, L., Napolitano, L., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01358

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 228, 2

    Luo, B., Brandt, W., Xue, Y., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 228, 2

    2016

  51. [59]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 191

    2022

  52. [60]

    H., et al

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 229

    2024

  53. [61]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39

    2017

  54. [62]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 2095

    Mineo, S., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 2095

    2012

  55. [63]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A99

    Misra, D., Kovlakas, K., Fragos, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A99

    2023

  56. [64]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08911

    Nakazato, Y., Ceverino, D., & Yoshida, N. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08911

    2024

  57. [65]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 685, 160

    Elitzur, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 685, 160

    2008

  58. [66]

    R., Wilson, K

    Patton, D. R., Wilson, K. D., Metrow, C. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 4969

    2020

  59. [67]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, L59

    2004

  60. [68]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 399, 39

    Ranalli, P., Comastri, A., & Setti, G. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 399, 39

    2003

  61. [69]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 83

    Rieke, G., Alberts, S., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 83

    2024

  62. [70]

    H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B., et al

    Rieke, G. H., Alonso-Herrero, A., Weiner, B., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 556

    2009

  63. [71]

    J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 16

    2023

  64. [72]

    H., et al

    Rujopakarn, W., Dunlop, J., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 12

    2016

  65. [73]

    E., Sanders, R

    Shapley, A. E., Sanders, R. L., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 157

    2023

  66. [74]

    2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 437

    Shtykovskiy, P., & Gilfanov, M. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 437

    2007

  67. [75]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132

    2020

  68. [76]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3504

    Tetarenko, A., Rosolowsky, E., Miller-Jones, J., & Sivakoff, G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3504

    2020

  69. [77]

    C., & Sivakoff, G

    Miller-Jones, J. C., & Sivakoff, G. R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 448

    2018

  70. [78]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 19

    Tremmel, M., Fragos, T., Lehmer, B., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 19

    2013

  71. [79]

    Veilleux, S., & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ISSN 0067-0049), vol. 63, Feb. 1987, p. 295-310. NSERC-supported research., 63, 295

    1987

  72. [80]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

    2020

  73. [81]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01473

    Wang, B., Leja, J., de Graaff, A., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01473

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 546, A36

    Zhang, Z., Gilfanov, M., & Bogd´ an,´A. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 546, A36

    2012

Pith tools

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