pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.05593 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Consistent Gas-Phase Temperatures and Metallicities from UV and Optical Nebular Emission: A Reliable Foundation from z=0 to Cosmic Dawn

Erin Huntzinger , Yuguang Chen , Tucker Jones , Ryan Sanders , Peter Senchyna , Daniel P. Stark , Fabio Bresolin , Stephane Charlot
show 1 more author
Jacopo Chevallard
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords gas-phase metallicityelectron temperatureUV nebular emissionoptical nebular emissionblue compact dwarf galaxiescosmic dawnHeII emission linesaperture correction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A helium emission line method makes UV and optical gas temperature and metallicity measurements consistent within 0.1 dex.

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

This paper develops a technique to align UV and optical spectra of star-forming galaxies by using the HeII 1640 and 4686 lines for aperture and reddening corrections. Applied to three nearby blue compact dwarf galaxies, the method produces electron temperatures and oxygen abundances from UV data that match optical results closely, with differences under 0.1 dex. Such consistency provides a reliable way to measure nebular properties in distant galaxies observed in UV by telescopes like JWST, allowing direct comparisons of chemical evolution from today back to cosmic dawn. The approach works despite some unexpected temperature differences in two objects, suggesting more complex conditions in star-forming gas than previously modeled.

Core claim

By leveraging the HeII 1640 and HeII 4686 nebular lines to correct for aperture and reddening effects, electron temperatures derived from UV and optical spectra agree more closely than in earlier studies, and O/H abundances match within 0.1 dex across the three BCD galaxies examined. This holds even as two galaxies show lower UV temperatures than optical ones, contrary to temperature fluctuation expectations. The findings indicate that UV- and optical-based nebular measurements can be reliably compared, forming a foundation for evolutionary studies from z=0 to high redshift.

What carries the argument

The ratio of HeII 1640 to HeII 4686 emission lines, which enables accurate aperture and reddening corrections between UV and optical spectra.

If this is right

  • UV-based temperatures and abundances can be directly compared to optical ones for evolutionary studies across redshift.
  • High-redshift galaxy observations with JWST can use local calibrations without large systematic offsets.
  • Metallicity evolution from the local universe to cosmic dawn can be tracked consistently.
  • The method highlights potential complexities in the spatial distribution of emission lines in star-forming regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the HeII lines do not perfectly trace the same gas, larger samples may reveal systematic biases at high redshift.
  • Investigating the cause of lower UV temperatures could lead to refined models of nebular conditions.
  • Extending the method to other galaxy types could test its generality beyond blue compact dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

That the HeII 1640 and 4686 lines accurately trace the same physical gas regions and conditions, allowing valid aperture and reddening corrections.

What would settle it

Finding a larger sample of galaxies where UV and optical temperatures or abundances differ by significantly more than 0.1 dex even after applying the HeII-based corrections would challenge the reliability of the agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05593 by Daniel P. Stark, Erin Huntzinger, Fabio Bresolin, Jacopo Chevallard, Peter Senchyna, Ryan Sanders, Stephane Charlot, Tucker Jones, Yuguang Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Images of the three blue compact dwarf galaxies studied in this work. Each panel shows a SDSS u, g, r false-color image, the HST/ COS 2 ′′5 aperture (circles), and the Keck/ ESI 1′′ × 20′′ slit (rectangles). The 2′′5 COS aperture size corresponds to projected diameters of 0.23 kpc for SB 2, 0.92 kpc for SB 82, and 2.31 kpc for SB 182 (Senchyna et al. 2017). Near-UV target acquisition images from COS for al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Keck/ESI optical spectra of the three objects presented in this work. Prominent emission features, epecially the ones useful for this work, are labeled and marked with vertical dashed lines. All relevant features are clearly detected, including nebular He II λ4686. A broad He II component is visible in SB 82 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Rest-frame Keck/ESI spectra with the best-fit Gaussian profile and residual for select emission lines used in this analysis for each target. The x-axis range is 10 A for all spectra presented in this figure and the y-axis is at a scale of ˚ 10−17 erg s−1 cm−2 A˚ −1 . We adopt a double Gaussian profile for He II λ4686 in SB 82, representing both the broad stellar and narrow nebular components. The broad com… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Binned HST/COS spectra, associated 1σ error spectra, best-fit Gaussian models, and residual spectra for our targets SB 2, SB 82 and SB 182. SB 2 and SB 82 have 10 orbits of COS data (Senchyna et al. 2022), while SB 182 has only a single orbit (Senchyna et al. 2017). Above, z is the redshift as measured from the observed UV spectra. f1640, f1661 and f1666 are the measured flux and 1σ uncertainty for He II λ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our measurements of Te 1666 versus Te 4363 for the objects in our sam￾ple, along with measurements from Mingozzi et al. (2022) which used a different methodology. Two galaxies in our sample (SB 2 and SB 182) have Te 1666<Te 4363, whereas temperature fluctuations predict the opposite result. Our sample dis￾plays a tight distribution with standard deviation scatter of 515 K (4.2% mean absolute percent offset… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posterior of T0 vs. t 2 from the MCMC analysis for the three BCDs in our sample. Panel (a) shows the three BCDs together, denoted by different colors and symbols. The shaded regions indicate the 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals. Panels (b)–(d) zoom in on the individual objects. For each object, the secondary y-axis shows the 12 + log10(O++/H+) abundance at the corresponding T0. The solid and dashed lines… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperature variance (t 2 ) and the corresponding O++/H abundances based on Te 4363 for objects SB 2, SB 82, and SB 182 (∗ = this work), compared to t 2 and O++/H abundances from the literature (Garc´ıa-Rojas et al. 2004; Garc´ıa-Rojas & Esteban 2007; Esteban et al. 2009, 2014). SB 82 displays a positive t 2 value within 1σ of zero, while our t 2 results for SB 2 and SB 182 are negative. Formally, a negati… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rest-frame UV spectra of star-forming galaxies are increasingly important as they become one of the primary windows to probe the physical properties of cosmic dawn (z>8) galaxies with the James Webb Space Telescope. However, the systematic discrepancies between UV and optical gas-phase metallicity measurements remain poorly understood in the local universe, partly due to challenges in achieving precise comparisons between UV and optical spectra for the same objects. In this work, we introduce a novel method that leverages the HeII 1640 and HeII 4686 nebular emission lines to achieve accurate aperture and reddening corrections between UV and optical spectra. Here we apply this method to three nearby Blue Compact Dwarf (BCD) galaxies. Our results demonstrate that this approach enables precise measurements, with electron temperatures ($T_e$) derived from UV and optical spectra exhibiting closer agreement compared to previous studies, and O/H abundance agreeing within 0.1 dex. However, two BCDs appear to have lower UV-based electron temperatures $T_{e~1666} < T_{e~4363}$, in contrast to expectations from the temperature fluctuation model. We consider a variety of possible explanations for these unphysical temperatures - differential dust attenuation, aperture differences, and spatial extent of emission lines - but no suitable cause is identified. These findings suggest a complex gaseous environment associated with star formation, and underscore the need for additional observations to further investigate the nature of HeII nebular emission and address the systematic issues between UV and optical nebular properties. Nonetheless, the close empirical agreement of these results indicates that UV- and optical-based nebular temperature and abundance measurements can be reliably compared within 0.1 dex, providing a solid foundation for evolutionary studies from the local Universe to cosmic dawn.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a method using the HeII 1640 Å (UV) to HeII 4686 Å (optical) line ratio to derive aperture and reddening corrections between UV and optical spectra. Applied to three nearby Blue Compact Dwarf galaxies, it reports improved consistency in electron temperatures (Te) from UV (1666 Å) and optical (4363 Å) diagnostics, with gas-phase O/H abundances agreeing within 0.1 dex. The authors note that UV Te is lower than optical Te in two galaxies (opposite to temperature-fluctuation expectations), rule out differential dust, aperture mismatch, and spatial extent differences, but identify no physical cause; they conclude the empirical agreement supports reliable UV-optical comparisons from z=0 to cosmic dawn.

Significance. If the 0.1 dex O/H agreement and correction method prove robust, the work provides a practical foundation for consistent nebular metallicity and temperature measurements across redshift, directly supporting JWST studies of z>8 galaxies where only rest-UV spectra are available. The empirical test on three real objects with direct spectroscopic data is a concrete strength for the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section (discussion of the three BCDs): The reported T_e,1666 < T_e,4363 inversion in two galaxies contradicts the temperature-fluctuation model (which predicts the opposite bias for auroral-line diagnostics), and although differential dust attenuation, aperture differences, and spatial extents of the lines are tested and ruled out, no alternative physical explanation is provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the HeII 1640/4686 ratio is used to align the spectra under the assumption that the lines sample identical volumes and conditions; an unresolved inversion leaves open the possibility that the corrections misalign the data, making the 0.1 dex O/H agreement empirical rather than demonstrably robust for extrapolation to z>8 regimes with only UV data.
  2. [Method] Method section (HeII-based correction procedure): The assumption that HeII 1640 and HeII 4686 trace the same physical gas regions is required for the aperture and reddening corrections to be valid, yet the unexplained Te inversion in two objects directly challenges this shared-gas premise without additional modeling or verification data. This needs to be addressed (e.g., via resolved spectroscopy or alternative tracers) before the method can be presented as a reliable foundation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that Te values exhibit 'closer agreement' is not quantified (e.g., no reported ΔTe or comparison to prior studies); adding the actual differences would improve clarity without altering the result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address the two major comments point by point below, clarifying the empirical nature of our results while acknowledging limitations. Revisions will be made to strengthen the discussion of assumptions and caveats.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section (discussion of the three BCDs): The reported T_e,1666 < T_e,4363 inversion in two galaxies contradicts the temperature-fluctuation model (which predicts the opposite bias for auroral-line diagnostics), and although differential dust attenuation, aperture differences, and spatial extents of the lines are tested and ruled out, no alternative physical explanation is provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the HeII 1640/4686 ratio is used to align the spectra under the assumption that the lines sample identical volumes and conditions; an unresolved inversion leaves open the possibility that the corrections misalign the data, making the 0.1 dex O/H agreement empirical rather than demonstrably robust for extrapolation to z>8 regimes with only UV data.

    Authors: We agree that the observed T_e inversion is unexpected and opposite to temperature-fluctuation predictions, and that we have not identified a physical cause despite ruling out differential dust, aperture mismatch, and spatial extent differences. The HeII 1640/4686 ratio provides an empirical correction derived from direct observations, and the resulting O/H agreement within 0.1 dex demonstrates practical consistency between UV and optical diagnostics. We will revise the results and discussion sections to more explicitly frame the agreement as empirical, to expand on potential complexities in the gas conditions, and to add stronger caveats regarding extrapolation to z>8 galaxies where only UV data are available. We concur that resolved spectroscopy would help but is outside the current scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Method section (HeII-based correction procedure): The assumption that HeII 1640 and HeII 4686 trace the same physical gas regions is required for the aperture and reddening corrections to be valid, yet the unexplained Te inversion in two objects directly challenges this shared-gas premise without additional modeling or verification data. This needs to be addressed (e.g., via resolved spectroscopy or alternative tracers) before the method can be presented as a reliable foundation.

    Authors: Both HeII lines arise from recombination in the same highly ionized species, supporting the premise that they sample overlapping volumes; the T_e inversion affects OIII auroral diagnostics, which can be sensitive to different ionization zones. The empirical success of the correction in producing consistent abundances across three galaxies provides initial validation. We will revise the method section to include a more detailed justification of the shared-region assumption, to discuss its limitations in light of the inversion, and to recommend future verification with resolved spectroscopy or alternative tracers. No new modeling or data are added in this revision. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A physical explanation for the T_e,1666 < T_e,4363 inversion in two BCD galaxies, which cannot be resolved without additional observations such as spatially resolved spectroscopy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical agreement from independent UV/optical measurements after HeII-based alignment

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical demonstration that UV- and optical-derived Te and O/H agree to within 0.1 dex after applying aperture/reddening corrections derived from the observed HeII 1640/4686 ratio. These corrections are obtained directly from the data rather than from any fitted model or self-citation; Te and abundances are then computed separately from the aligned UV and optical spectra using standard nebular diagnostics. No equation reduces the reported agreement to a quantity defined by the inputs, and the paper explicitly flags the unexplained Te,UV < Te,opt cases as an open issue rather than claiming they are resolved by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external spectroscopic benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard nebular astrophysics assumptions about line formation and dust effects rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption HeII 1640 and HeII 4686 lines originate from the same physical gas volume and can be used to derive accurate differential aperture and reddening corrections
    Invoked to justify the novel correction method applied to the three BCD galaxies.
  • domain assumption Standard temperature fluctuation models describe the relationship between UV and optical electron temperatures
    Used as the baseline against which the observed lower UV Te values are judged unphysical.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1453 out tokens · 46322 ms · 2026-05-15T14:45:01.831798+00:00 · methodology

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

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Keenan, F

    Aggarwal, K. M., & Keenan, F. P. 1999, ApJS, 123, 311

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    H., & Martini, P

    Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140 Arellano-C´ordova, K. Z., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L23 Arellano-C´ordova, K. Z., M ´endez-Delgado, J. E., Flury, S. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13007

    work page arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    A., James, B

    Berg, D. A., James, B. L., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 31

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A., Kewley, L., V ogt, F

    Blanc, G. A., Kewley, L., V ogt, F. P. A., & Dopita, M. A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 99

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 64

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A., Sextl, E., & Riess, A

    Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Urbaneja, M. A., Sextl, E., & Riess, A. G. 2025, ApJ, 991, 151

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07256

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A

    Cameron, A. J., Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A115

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    work page 1989

  11. [11]

    L., et al

    Chen, Y ., Jones, T., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18476

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Cosens, M., Wright, S., Murray, N., et al. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 333.06D

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    V ., Smith, J

    Croxall, K. V ., Smith, J. D., Brandl, B. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 96

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    J., Dunlop, J

    Cullen, F., Cirasuolo, M., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Bowler, R. A. A. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2300

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    2025, A&A, 697, A89 UV and Optical HIIRegion T emperatures 15 Dav´e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B

    Curti, M., Witstok, J., Jakobsen, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A89 UV and Optical HIIRegion T emperatures 15 Dav´e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1354 Dav´e, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 115

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Erb, D. K. 2008, ApJ, 674, 151

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    K., Shapley, A

    Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 654

    Esteban, C., Bresolin, F., Peimbert, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 654

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 624

    Esteban, C., Garc´ıa-Rojas, J., Carigi, L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 624

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    A., Weilbacher, P

    Fensch, J., Duc, P. A., Weilbacher, P. M., Boquien, M., & Zackrisson, E. 2016, A&A, 585, A79 Froese Fischer, C., & Tachiev, G. 2004, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 87, 1 Garc´ıa-Rojas, J., & Esteban, C. 2007, ApJ, 670, 457 Garc´ıa-Rojas, J., Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., et al. 2004, ApJS, 153, 501

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    D., Clayton, G

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

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Citro, A., et al

    Hayes, M. J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Citro, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 14

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Y .-Y ., Topping, M

    Hsiao, T. Y .-Y ., Topping, M. W., Coe, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 70

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    L., Berg, D

    James, B. L., Berg, D. A., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 37

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Jones, T., Martin, C., & Cooper, M. C. 2015, ApJ, 813, 126

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 951, L17

    Jones, T., Sanders, R., Chen, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L17

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    M., Guerrero, M

    Kehrig, C., V´ılchez, J. M., Guerrero, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1081

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    M., P´erez-Montero, E., et al

    Kehrig, C., V´ılchez, J. M., P´erez-Montero, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L28

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    S., Crowther, P

    Kehrig, C., Oey, M. S., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A128

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    M., Jones, T., Chen, Y ., et al

    Kelly, P. M., Jones, T., Chen, Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.03954

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    V ., Belfiore, F., et al

    Kreckel, K., Egorov, O. V ., Belfiore, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A16

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    L., & Irwin, M

    Kumari, N., James, B. L., & Irwin, M. J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4618

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    M., Terlevich, E., & Terlevich, R

    Kunth, D., Lequeux, J., Mas-Hesse, J. M., Terlevich, E., & Terlevich, R. 1997, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 6, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. J. Franco, R. Terlevich, & A. Serrano, 61

    work page 1997

  37. [37]

    Lago, P. J. A., Costa, R. D. D., Fa ´undez-Abans, M., & Maciel, W. J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2923

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5836

    Leethochawalit, N., Trenti, M., Morishita, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., & Treu, T. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5836

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y . 2013, ApJ, 772, 119

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    W., Storey, P

    Liu, X. W., Storey, P. J., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 585

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    2008, A&A, 488, 463

    Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463

    work page 2008

  43. [43]

    R., & Del Zanna, G

    Mao, J., Badnell, N. R., & Del Zanna, G. 2021, A&A, 653, A81

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    L., Peng, Z., & Li, Y

    Martin, C. L., Peng, Z., & Li, Y . 2024, ApJ, 966, 190

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    F., Dale, J

    McLeod, A. F., Dale, J. E., Evans, C. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5263 M´endez-Delgado, J. E., Amayo, A., Arellano-C ´ordova, K. Z., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4436

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    L., Arellano-C ´ordova, K

    Mingozzi, M., James, B. L., Arellano-C ´ordova, K. Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 110

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27 M´endez-Delgado, J. E., Skillman, E. D., Aver, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17381

    work page arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.12825

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y ., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.12825

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    C., Dopita, M

    Nicholls, D. C., Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 752, 148

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    E., & Ferland, G

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

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    S., & Shankar, F

    Peeples, M. S., & Shankar, F. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2962

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 89

    Peimbert, A., & Peimbert, M. 2013, ApJ, 778, 89

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 825

    Peimbert, M. 1967, ApJ, 150, 825

    work page 1967

  54. [54]

    E., Wold, I

    Rhoads, J. E., Wold, I. G. B., Harish, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L14 Rickards Vaught, R. J., Sandstrom, K. M., & Hunt, L. K. 2021, ApJ, 911, L17 Rickards Vaught, R. J., Sandstrom, K. M., Belfiore, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 130

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08149

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 136

    Sarkar, A., Chakraborty, P., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 136

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Schaerer, D., Fragos, T., & Izotov, Y . I. 2019, A&A, 622, L10

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    2022, A&A, 665, L4

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Barrufet, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L4

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Schaerer, D., & Vacca, W. D. 1998, ApJ, 497, 618

    work page 1998

  61. [61]

    P., Mirocha, J., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Mirocha, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 941

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    P., Vidal-Garc´ıa, A., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Vidal-Garc´ıa, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2608

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    P., Charlot, S., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Charlot, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 105

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    I., Bolte, M., Epps, H

    Sheinis, A. I., Bolte, M., Epps, H. W., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 851

    work page 2002

  65. [65]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 1043 Stasi´nska, G., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Rodr´ıguez, M., & Henney, W

    Shirazi, M., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1043 Stasi´nska, G., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Rodr´ıguez, M., & Henney, W. J. 2007, A&A, 471, 193

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    C., Rudie, G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    J., & Sochi, T

    Storey, P. J., & Sochi, T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2581

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    P., Swinbank, A

    Stott, J. P., Swinbank, A. M., Johnson, H. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1888

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    P., Mason, C

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08245

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    S., & Zatsarinny, O

    Tayal, S. S., & Zatsarinny, O. 2017, ApJ, 850, 147

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    J., Barger, A

    Taylor, A. J., Barger, A. J., & Cowie, L. L. 2022, ApJ, 939, L3

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 153 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4087

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    work page 2004

  75. [75]

    B., Brammer, G

    Treu, T., Schmidt, K. B., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 114

    work page 2015

  76. [76]

    2014, A&A, 563, A58

    Troncoso, P., Maiolino, R., Sommariva, V ., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A58

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    R., Arrabal Haro, P., Simons, R

    Trump, J. R., Arrabal Haro, P., Simons, R. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 35

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    G., Barlow, M

    Tsamis, Y . G., Barlow, M. J., Liu, X. W., Danziger, I. J., & Storey, P. J. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 687

    work page 2003

  79. [79]

    2024, ApJ, 967, L42

    Wang, X., Cheng, C., Ge, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, L42

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    M., Monreal-Ibero, A., Kollatschny, W., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Monreal-Ibero, A., Kollatschny, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A114

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.