Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Electron-temperature scaling relations hold in metal-poor starburst gas, including diffuse outflow gas.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Te-Te relations from five auroral lines in four low-metallicity starbursts, including diffuse extraplanar gas, are consistent with spiral H II region relations, with one flagged exception.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful resolved test of Te-Te relations in metal-poor starbursts and diffuse gas that mostly confirms the standard relations, with one exception and a classification caveat that should be addressed before the abstract's null claim is taken at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01282 v1 pith:SV4QZP7Z submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.GA

Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies

Magdalena J. Hamel-Bravo , Deanne B. Fisher , Danielle A. Berg , Alex J. Cameron , John Chisholm , Glenn G. Kacprzak , Barbara Mazzilli Ciraulo , Anna F. McLeod
show 1 more author
Rodrigo Herrera-Camus
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords electron temperatureTe-Te relationsauroral linesstarburst galaxiesdiffuse gasextraplanar gasmetallicitydirect method
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tests whether the empirical relations between electron temperatures measured from different auroral lines—relations routinely used to turn a single auroral detection into a full metallicity—remain valid in environments far from the bright HII regions where they were calibrated. The authors use VLT/X-Shooter spectra of four nearby, low-metallicity starburst galaxies, measuring five auroral-line temperatures in both compact point-like sources and diffuse, extraplanar gas. Their central result is that the resulting temperature-temperature (Te–Te) relations do not deviate significantly from those established for HII regions in local spiral galaxies, even for the most metal-poor and highly ionized target and for gas outside the stellar disk. If correct, this means auroral-line-based 'direct method' metallicities stay trustworthy when applied to high-redshift analogues and to outflowing gas, where often only one auroral line can be detected.

Core claim

The paper establishes that Te–Te relations are environment-independent across a parameter space that includes resolved spatial elements of 10–200 pc, metallicities 12+log(O/H) = 7.25–8.33, and both point-like sources and diffuse extraplanar gas. Electron temperatures are derived from five auroral lines ([N II] λ5755, [O II] λλ7319,30, [S II] λλ4069,76, [S III] λ6312, [O III] λ4363) for each 1-inch spatial element along long-slit observations of four starburst galaxies. Comparing these against the CHAOS sample of spiral HII regions, the mean residual of the diffuse-gas measurements relative to the HII-region Te–Te relations lies within three times the measurement uncertainty for almost all re

What carries the argument

The central object is the Te–Te relation: a linear scaling between electron temperatures measured from different ions, each tracing a different ionization zone (low, intermediate, high) in the nebular gas. The paper constructs these relations from five auroral-line ratios per spatial element, then compares them with the same relations built from CHAOS HII regions. The comparison is made quantitative by binning the data in uniform 2000 K steps, fitting to CHAOS plus point-like sources, and computing mean orthogonal residuals for the diffuse-gas sample.

Load-bearing premise

The split between 'point-like sources' and 'diffuse gas' relies on a 20% flux-contribution threshold and, for IC 2828, on treating all spectral elements as diffuse even though some may be dominated by HII regions; if the diffuse sample is actually contaminated by HII-region light, the claimed universality for true extraplanar gas is weakened.

What would settle it

A deep, high-spatial-resolution (adaptive-optics IFU) observation of extraplanar gas in one of these galaxies, with HII regions unambiguously masked, would settle it: if the gas's Te([O III])–Te([S III]) point lies on the local-spiral relation within uncertainties, the universal-validity claim is supported; if it remains offset by more than three times the measurement uncertainty (as the current diffuse sample already shows for that pair), the universality fails for that relation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Auroral-line direct metallicities for high-redshift galaxies can continue to rely on local Te–Te calibrations even in metal-poor, highly ionized systems like SBS 0335-052E.
  • Single-[O III]-line metallicity measurements in diffuse extraplanar gas and outflows are valid, supporting the interpretation of existing and future outflow metallicity studies.
  • The Te–Te relations appear scale-invariant from ~17 pc to ~230 pc, meaning integrated spectra of high-redshift galaxies should not suffer strong biases from temperature-structure variations at these scales.
  • The one flagged exception—the [O III]–[S III] relation in diffuse gas—requires more data before it is used for metallicity work in such environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the apparent universality of Te–Te relations implies that photoionization models predicting temperature structures could be directly cross-checked against observed diffuse-gas temperatures in regimes where those models are currently unconstrained.
  • The 4.3-sigma residual in the [O III]–[S III] diffuse-gas relation may be a real physical signature—e.g., density inhomogeneities or a harder radiation field—that a dedicated deep, adaptive-optics IFU observation of a single well-resolved galaxy could isolate.
  • If the relations are truly universal, then previous outflow metallicity measurements derived from a single auroral line are limited chiefly by flux measurement accuracy, not by the temperature-scaling step—an implicit assumption these authors make explicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/X-Shooter spectroscopy of four nearby, low-metallicity starburst galaxies (NGC 5253, NGC 0625, SBS 0335-052E, IC 2828), resolving 11 spatial elements per slit and measuring up to five auroral electron temperatures: Te([N II]), Te([O II]), Te([S II]), Te([S III]), and Te([O III]). It classifies spatial elements as point-like sources or diffuse gas using HST H-alpha images and a 20% flux-contribution threshold, then compares the resulting Te-Te relations with CHAOS H II regions in local spirals. The central claim is that Te-Te relations do not significantly deviate in low-metallicity starburst galaxies, including in diffuse/extraplanar gas, and that auroral-line metallicity diagnostics therefore remain valid in high-redshift galaxies and outflows. A binned residual analysis (Appendix B) is used to quantify offsets between diffuse gas and the H II region calibration.

Significance. If fully supported, this is a valuable empirical result: it would validate the use of single-auroral-line metallicities in the extreme ISM conditions of low-metallicity starbursts and in diffuse extraplanar gas, with direct implications for high-redshift JWST studies and outflow metallicity measurements. The paper is careful in several respects: it uses the same atomic data as CHAOS, propagates Monte Carlo uncertainties, and constructs the defining fit in Appendix B from CHAOS plus point-like sources only, avoiding the most obvious circularity. The resolved 10-200 pc sampling and the inclusion of multiple auroral diagnostics are strengths. However, the central null claim is not as clean as the abstract states: the paper's own residual analysis finds a 4.3-sigma offset for the Te([O III])-Te([S III]) relation in diffuse gas, and the statistical criterion used to declare 'no significant difference' is not a proper significance test. The classification of diffuse gas also contains admitted H II region contamination for IC 2828. These issues bear directly on the headline conclusion and require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5 and Fig. B2(d)] The abstract states 'We do not find significant differences in the diffuse, extraplanar gas,' but the paper's own residual analysis in Appendix B reports for the Te([O III])-Te([S III]) relation a diffuse-gas mean residual of <r> = -0.13 × 10^4 K against a mean uncertainty σ_Te = 0.03 × 10^4 K, i.e. 4.3 times the quoted uncertainty. This is acknowledged in §4.5 as 'the only exception,' yet the abstract and §5.2 present the diffuse-gas null result without that caveat. Since Te([O III])-Te([S III]) is the relation bridging the high- and intermediate-ionization zones, it is not a peripheral diagnostic. The abstract and conclusions must be qualified, and the physical origin of this offset (e.g., ionization, density, or contamination) should be discussed as a possible breakdown of the no-deviation claim.
  2. [§4.5 and Appendix B] The significance criterion used throughout — comparing the mean residual <r> to the mean measurement uncertainty σ_Te and accepting |<r>| ≤ 3σ_Te as 'not significantly different' — is not a statistically valid test for an offset. For a sample of N independent measurements, the standard error of the mean residual is approximately σ_Te/√N. The diffuse samples in the well-populated relations have N ≈ 30; for example, in Fig. B1(e) D: <r>=0.04 and D: σ_Te=0.05, which would correspond to a ~4σ offset, not a null result. The correct procedure is to compare the mean residual to its standard error (or to perform a bootstrap/chi-square test) and to report p-values. As written, the conclusion 'no significant differences' is under-supported for most relations, not just the [O III]-[S III] case. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  3. [§4.2] The diffuse-gas classification is load-bearing and is explicitly contaminated for IC 2828: the paper states that all spatial elements of IC 2828 are treated as diffuse gas 'because no HST H-alpha image is available' and that this 'may have some contamination from spectra dominated by H II regions.' Since IC 2828 is one of only four galaxies and contributes a substantial number of diffuse elements, the diffuse sample may partly be testing H II region-like spectra rather than true extraplanar gas. In addition, the 20% H-alpha flux threshold does not guarantee that the auroral lines are dominated by diffuse gas: a compact, hotter H II region that contributes only 20% of H-alpha can contribute a much larger fraction of the exponentially temperature-sensitive auroral flux (e.g., [O III] λ4363, [S III] λ6312). The authors should re-run the key comparisons excluding IC 2828, and/or present a se
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] Typo: '[Oiii] λ4636' should be '[Oiii] λ4363' in the saturation discussion.
  2. [§2.1] Typo: 'NGC 5353' should be 'NGC 5253'. The galaxy name is also inconsistent: 'NGC 625' and 'NGC 0625' are used in different places; please unify.
  3. [§2.1 and §2.2] Cross-references to tables appear incorrect: the text says 'Table 2 summarizes the key properties' and 'listed in Table 2.2' for exposure times; the tables are numbered Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
  4. [Table 3 and Figure 4/5 captions] For relations involving [N II], the tables show no RMS values for point-source/diffuse samples because of small N; please state explicitly in the caption or text that these entries are empty because fewer than two measurements were available, to avoid implying omissions.
  5. [§4.3] The sentence 'For [N II], [S II], and [O II], we expect the Te–Te relations to follow a 1:1 trend due to their similar ionization potentials' is slightly at odds with the paper's own statement that Te([N II]) is systematically lower; a sentence noting the known offsets would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical comparison to external CHAOS benchmark with an out-of-sample residual test in Appendix B.

full rationale

This paper is an observational comparison, not a derivation, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. Electron temperatures are measured from five auroral-to-nebular line ratios via PyNeb (§4.1), and the resulting Te–Te relations are compared against the CHAOS H ii region sample (§2.3). The comparison is not circular: CHAOS is an external, published dataset used as a benchmark, and although a coauthor is involved in both, the CHAOS measurements are independent of the new X-Shooter data and are not fitted values from this paper. The central null claim about diffuse gas is supported by a proper residual test: §4.5 and Appendix B bin only CHAOS plus point-source data, fit the relation to those bins, and then compute diffuse-gas residuals, so the diffuse conclusion does not reduce to a fit that includes the diffuse points. The self-citations (Hamel-Bravo et al. 2024; Berg et al. 2015/2020) are contextual or benchmark references, not load-bearing arguments, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those papers. The remaining weaknesses are empirical-validity issues rather than circularity: §4.2 explicitly acknowledges that for IC 2828 'we consider all spatial elements of IC 2828 as diffuse gas. This implies that our diffuse gas sample may have some contamination from spectra dominated by H ii regions,' and §4.5/Figure B2(d) reports one relation, Te([O iii])−Te([S iii]), where the diffuse-gas mean residual is 4.3σ_Te, which tempers the abstract's unqualified 'do not find significant differences' claim. These concerns affect the strength and interpretation of the empirical result, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

12 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. The free parameters are the fitted slopes and intercepts of the empirical Te-Te relations, which are the objects under test, plus hand-chosen analysis thresholds. The key assumptions are standard domain assumptions about atomic data, ionization structure, and the relevance of the CHAOS comparison sample. The most fragile choices are the point-source classification threshold and the treatment of IC 2828 as all-diffuse, both of which directly shape the central null result.

free parameters (12)
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O II])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.17 ± 0.04, 0.64 ± 0.04
    Linear fit to combined CHAOS + new data (Table 3), used to define the empirical Te-Te relation.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S II])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.48 ± 0.04, 0.40 ± 0.04
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S II])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.73 ± 0.05, 0.26 ± 0.07
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.54 ± 0.02, 0.40 ± 0.02
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([S II]) fit = 0.88 ± 0.08, 0.11 ± 0.10
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([S III])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.55 ± 0.03, 0.47 ± 0.03
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([N II]) fit = 0.61 ± 0.08, 0.31 ± 0.08
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([O II]) fit = 0.64 ± 0.06, 0.40 ± 0.06
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([S II]) fit = 0.91 ± 0.15, 0.15 ± 0.17
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Slope m and intercept b for Te([O III])-Te([S III]) fit = 1.28 ± 0.07, -0.24 ± 0.08
    Fitted linear relation, Table 3.
  • Point-source classification threshold (20% H-alpha flux contribution) = 20%
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 4.2 to classify spatial elements as point-source dominated; changing it changes the diffuse sample composition.
  • Bin width for binned residual fits = 2000 K
    Chosen bin width in Appendix B for the residual analysis; test with median gave unchanged results.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Adopted atomic data (collision strengths and transition probabilities) are correct for computing Te with PyNeb.
    Used in Section 4.1; the same data as CHAOS are adopted, so errors would cancel in comparisons but could bias absolute Te values.
  • domain assumption A three-zone ionization structure (low, intermediate, high) is an adequate description of the gas.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 to group ions; deviations from this structure in diffuse gas are precisely what the paper tests, but the grouping guides interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial elements with >20% of H-alpha flux from a point-like source are dominated by H II regions and should follow CHAOS-like Te-Te relations.
    Stated in Section 4.2 and used in Section 4.5 to build the reference relation; if this assumption fails, the reference relation itself is biased.
  • domain assumption The CHAOS sample of spiral H II regions represents the benchmark Te-Te relations for H II regions.
    Used throughout as the comparison sample; CHAOS galaxies are more massive and metal-rich, so the comparison assumes these relations are the relevant local baseline.
  • domain assumption Diffuse gas with no significant continuum and vertical orientation is extraplanar/outflowing gas.
    Stated in Section 2.1: 'the lack of significant continuum emission and the vertical orientation of the structures support their interpretation as extraplanar gas'; if the gas is actually in the disk, the outflow claim is weakened.
  • domain assumption The Balmer decrement reddening correction using Te=10^4 K, ne=100 cm^-3 and the LMC extinction curve is adequate.
    Used in Section 3; incorrect reddening would differentially bias Te from lines with widely spaced wavelengths, especially [O II].

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SV4QZP7Z

@misc{pith2026250901282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron temperature relations in low metallicity, diffuse, and extraplanar gas of starburst galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SV4QZP7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01282}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In this work, we test the validity of $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in resolved (10-200~pc) measurements of four nearby, low-metallicity (7.25 $\leq$ 12+log(O/H) $\leq$ 8.33), low-mass (10$^{6.78}$ $\leq$ M$_*$/M$_\odot$ $\leq$ 10$^{8.7}$), starburst (10$^{-4.5}$ $\leq$ sSFR $\leq$ 10$^{-0.3}$) galaxies. We obtain VLT/X-Shooter spectra of NGC~5253, NGC~0625, SBS~0335-052E and IC~2828, targeting regions within these galaxies with bright point-like sources and diffuse gas. Our observations are designed to extend from the galaxy midplane into extraplanar gas likely belonging to galactic winds. We measure electron temperatures from five different auroral lines: [NII]~$\lambda$5755, [OII]~$\lambda\lambda$7319,30, [SII]~$\lambda\lambda$4069,76, [SIII]~$\lambda$6312, and [OIII]~$\lambda$4363. We compare the resulting $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations with previous studies of HII regions in nearby spiral galaxies. Our results show that $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in low-metallicity starburst galaxies do not significantly deviate from $T_e$ - $T_e$ relations in HII regions of local spiral galaxies. We do not find significant differences in the diffuse, extraplanar gas. These results suggest that auroral lines provide a reliable metallicity diagnostic not only for high-redshift galaxies but also for the extended diffuse gas in extreme environments like outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01282 by Alex J. Cameron, Anna F. McLeod, Barbara Mazzilli Ciraulo, Danielle A. Berg, Deanne B. Fisher, Glenn G. Kacprzak, John Chisholm, Magdalena J. Hamel-Bravo, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Continuum subrtacted H𝛼 images of our four targets showing the position of the X-Shooter slits and the identified point-like sources of ionized gas. For NGC 5253 and NGC 0625 we use the continuum corrected HST/WFC2 F656N, for SBS 0335-052 we use HST/ACS F656N. For IC 2828 we continuum subtract the VLT/MUSE cube around the H𝛼 emission line, and then sum the remaining flux. Blue contours show the position of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Auroral emission lines for two different spatial elements in NGC 5253. The left panel shows an H𝛼 map of NGC 5253 with the X-Shooter spatial elements highlighted: purple, located closer to the H𝛼 flux peak and green, located further out in the diffuse extraplanar gas. Right panels show zoom-ins around the 5 auroral lines used in this work: [S ii] 𝜆𝜆4068,76, [O iii] 𝜆4363, [N ii] 𝜆5755, [S iii] 𝜆6312, and [… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BPT diagram from the [O iii] 𝜆5007 / H𝛽 and the [N ii] 𝜆6583 / H𝛼 ratio. Solid and dashed black lines show theoretical values from Kewley et al. (2001) and Kauffmann et al. (2003) respectively, below which emission line ratios are consistent with photoionization by stars. Pink symbols show measurements for our data that are classified as point-like sources and green symbols correspond to diffuse gas (see S… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations for ions probing the low and intermediate ionization zone. Left column shows 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations between the low ionization ions ([N ii], [O ii] and [S ii]). The right column shows 𝑇𝑒 relations between the low ionization ions and [S iii]. Black dots show CHAOS data, pink triangles show bright point-like sources in our data and green diamonds show diffuse gas in our data. The black line show… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations for [O iii] with all lower ionization zone ions ([N ii], [O ii], [S ii] and [S iii]). Black dots show CHAOS data, pink triangles show bright point-like sources in our data and green diamonds show diffuse gas in our data. The black line shows the linear fit to all the data. to the large scatter found in 𝑇𝑒 relations involving 𝑇𝑒([O iii]). In panel (d) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝑇𝑒 - 𝑇𝑒 relations colored by O32, 𝑛𝑒 and E(B-V). Top panels show the 𝑇𝑒([O iii]) - 𝑇𝑒([S iii]) relation, bottom panels show 𝑇𝑒([S iii]) - 𝑇𝑒([O ii]). Left panels are colored by O32 in red, middle panels are colored by 𝑛𝑒 in blue and right panels are colored by E(B-V) in green. Small circles show CHAOS data, triangles show our measurements for point-like sources, and diamonds show our measurements for diffu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Rodr \' guez M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..672A 497, 672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1759 2020

  3. [3]

    A., Skillman E

    Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Moustakas J., Johnson-Groh M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...16B 806, 16

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/16 2015

  4. [4]

    A., Pogge R

    Berg D. A., Pogge R. W., Skillman E. D., Croxall K. V., Moustakas J., Rogers N. S. J., Sun J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...96B 893, 96

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eab 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Chisholm J., Erb D

    Berg D. A., Chisholm J., Erb D. K., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Olivier G. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..170B 922, 170

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141b 2021

  6. [6]

    Brinchmann J., Kunth D., Durret F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...485..657B 485, 657

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809783 2008

  7. [7]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Calzetti D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...75C 811, 75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/75 2015

  9. [9]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    Cameron A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca 2021

  10. [10]

    J., Katz H., Rey M

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Rey M. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522L..89C 522, L89

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad046 2023

  11. [11]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..798C 466, 798

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  12. [12]

    A., Clayton G

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

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  13. [13]

    Carniani S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1170C 478, 1170

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1088 2018

  14. [14]

    arXiv:2504.03839

    Cataldi E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250403839C p. arXiv:2504.03839

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03839 2025

  15. [15]

    Chisholm J., Tremonti C., Leitherer C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1690C 481, 1690

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2380 2018

  16. [16]

    V., Pogge R

    Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Moustakas J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...42C 808, 42

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/42 2015

  17. [17]

    V., Pogge R

    Croxall K. V., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Skillman E. D., Moustakas J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830....4C 830, 4

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/4 2016

  18. [18]

    Curti M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..425C 518, 425

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2737 2023

  19. [19]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  20. [20]

    Esteban C., Bresolin F., Peimbert M., Garc \' a-Rojas J., Peimbert A., Mesa-Delgado A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..654E 700, 654

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/654 2009

  21. [21]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..186F 505, 186

    Fisher D. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..186F 505, 186

    doi:10.1038/nature12765 2014

  22. [22]

    M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C

    Freudling W., Romaniello M., Bramich D. M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C. E., Moehler S., Neeser M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..96F 559, A96

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 2013

  23. [23]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., 2004, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ADNDT..87....1F 87, 1

    doi:10.1016/j.adt.2004.02.001 2004

  24. [24]

    Froese Fischer C., Tachiev G., Irimia A., 2006, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/j.adt.2006.03.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ADNDT..92..607F 92, 607

    doi:10.1016/j.adt.2006.03.001 2006

  25. [25]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...41G 362, 41

    arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    Garnett D. R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1330G 103, 1330

    doi:10.1086/116146 1992

  27. [27]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Misselt K. A., Landolt A. U., Wolff M. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..279G 594, 279

    doi:10.1086/376774 2003

  28. [28]

    Guo Y., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...39G 800, 39

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/39 2015

  29. [29]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    Hamel-Bravo M. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae983 2024

  30. [30]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.121H 670, A121

    Herenz E. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.121H 670, A121

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244930 2023

  31. [31]

    E., Ramsbottom C

    Hudson C. E., Ramsbottom C. A., Scott M. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...65H 750, 65

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/65 2012

  32. [32]

    I., Lipovetsky V

    Izotov Y. I., Lipovetsky V. A., Chaffee F. H., Foltz C. B., Guseva N. G., Kniazev A. Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476..698I 476, 698

    work page doi:10.1086/303664 1997

  33. [33]

    I., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Fricke K. J., Papaderos P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...503...61I 503, 61

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911965 2009

  34. [34]

    I., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Fricke K. J., Henkel C., Schaerer D., Thuan T. X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.138I 646, A138

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039772 2021

  35. [35]

    Jaiswal S., Omar A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462...92J 462, 92

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1333 2016

  36. [36]

    Katz H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..592K 518, 592

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2657 2023

  37. [37]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

    M., Guerrero M

    Kehrig C., V \' lchez J. M., Guerrero M. A., Iglesias-P \'a ramo J., Hunt L. K., Duarte-Puertas S., Ramos-Larios G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1081K 480, 1081

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1920 2018

  39. [39]

    J., Ellison S

    Kewley L. J., Ellison S. L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1183K 681, 1183

    doi:10.1086/587500 2008

  40. [40]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  41. [41]

    J., Nicholls D

    Kewley L. J., Nicholls D. C., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..511K 57, 511

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  42. [43]

    A., Skillman E

    Kobulnicky H. A., Skillman E. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..527K 135, 527

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/527 2008

  43. [44]

    M., Graziani R., Hoffman Y., Pomar \`e de D., Shaya E

    Kourkchi E., Courtois H. M., Graziani R., Hoffman Y., Pomar \`e de D., Shaya E. J., Tully R. B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab620e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...67K 159, 67

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab620e 2020

  44. [45]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    Laseter I. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..70L 681, A70

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347133 2024

  45. [46]

    R., Dopita M

    L \'o pez-S \'a nchez \'A . R., Dopita M. A., Kewley L. J., Zahid H. J., Nicholls D. C., Scharw \"a chter J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21145.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.2630L 426, 2630

    arXiv 2012

  46. [47]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 2015

  47. [48]

    Maiolino R., Mannucci F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&ARv..27....3M 27, 3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  48. [49]

    Marasco A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..92M 670, A92

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244895 2023

  49. [50]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5425M 508, 5425

    McLeod A. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5425M 508, 5425

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2726 2021

  50. [51]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    M \'e ndez-Delgado J. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2952M 523, 2952

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1569 2023

  51. [52]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...91M 785, 91

    Mendoza C., Bautista M. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...91M 785, 91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/91 2014

  52. [53]

    arXiv:2502.07662

    Mingozzi M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250207662M p. arXiv:2502.07662

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.07662 2025

  53. [54]

    Monreal-Ibero A., Walsh J. R., Iglesias-P \'a ramo J., Sandin C., Rela \ n o M., P \'e rez-Montero E., V \' lchez J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A.130M 603, A130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730663 2017

  54. [55]

    Morishita T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971...43M 971, 43

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290 2024

  55. [56]

    Morisset C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..37M 594, A37

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628559 2016

  56. [57]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  57. [58]

    Paalvast M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..40P 618, A40

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832866 2018

  58. [59]

    I., Guseva N

    Papaderos P., Izotov Y. I., Guseva N. G., Thuan T. X., Fricke K. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..119P 454, 119

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065110 2006

  59. [60]

    Peimbert M., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..825P 150, 825

    doi:10.1086/149385 1967

  60. [61]

    I., V \' lchez J

    P \'e rez-Montero E., D \' az A. I., V \' lchez J. M., Kehrig C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...449..193P 449, 193

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054216 2006

  61. [62]

    S., Mattsson L., V \' lchez J

    Pilyugin L. S., Mattsson L., V \' lchez J. M., Cedr \'e s B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15182.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..485P 398, 485

    arXiv 2009

  62. [63]

    Popesso P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1526P 519, 1526

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3214 2023

  63. [64]

    E., Johnson K

    Reines A. E., Johnson K. E., Hunt L. K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.1415R 136, 1415

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1415 2008

  64. [65]

    R \'e my-Ruyer A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...563A..31R 563, A31

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322803 2014

  65. [66]

    Rickards Vaught R., Sandstrom K., Phangs Team 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 235.06

    2023

  66. [67]

    Rogers N. S. J., Skillman E. D., Pogge R. W., Berg D. A., Croxall K. V., Bartlett J., Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Moustakas J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac947d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939...44R 939, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac947d 2022

  67. [68]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9410023 1995

  68. [69]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1427S 491, 1427

    Sanders R. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1427S 491, 1427

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3032 2020

  69. [70]

    L., Shapley A

    Sanders R. L., Shapley A. E., Topping M. W., Reddy N. A., Brammer G. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acedad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...54S 955, 54

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acedad 2023

  70. [71]

    G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.120403.143327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..275S 42, 275

    Scalo J., Elmegreen B. G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.120403.143327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..275S 42, 275

    arXiv 2004

  71. [72]

    Schaerer D., Contini T., Kunth D., Meynet G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481L..75S 481, L75

    doi:10.1086/310659 1997

  72. [73]

    I., Naidu R., Guseva N

    Schaerer D., Marques-Chaves R., Barrufet L., Oesch P., Izotov Y. I., Naidu R., Guseva N. G., Brammer G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665L...4S 665, L4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244556 2022

  73. [74]

    R., Wisnioski E., Acharyya A., Federrath C., Forbes J

    Sharda P., Krumholz M. R., Wisnioski E., Acharyya A., Federrath C., Forbes J. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504...53S 504, 53

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab868 2021

  74. [75]

    D., C \^o t \'e S., Miller B

    Skillman E. D., C \^o t \'e S., Miller B. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..610S 125, 610

    work page doi:10.1086/345965 2003

  75. [76]

    J., Crowther P

    Smith L. J., Crowther P. A., Calzetti D., Sidoli F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...38S 823, 38

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/38 2016

  76. [77]

    J., Sochi T., Badnell N

    Storey P. J., Sochi T., Badnell N. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3028S 441, 3028

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu777 2014

  77. [78]

    Str \"o mgren B., 1939, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939ApJ....89..526S 89, 526

    doi:10.1086/144074 1939

  78. [79]

    Tang M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.1657T 526, 1657

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2763 2023

  79. [80]

    S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...12T 195, 12

    Tayal S. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...12T 195, 12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/12 2011

  80. [81]

    S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    Tayal S. S., Zatsarinny O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188...32T 188, 32

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/188/1/32 2010

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.