pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05548 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A Multiwavelength Assessment Disfavoring the X-ray Binary Origin of He III Regions in Metal-Poor Star-Forming Dwarf Galaxies

Ivan Altunin , Christopher Ellis , Richard M. Plotkin , Roberto Soria , Ryan Tanner , Erica Thygesen , Elena Gallo , Manfred W. Pakull
show 4 more authors
Andrea H. Prestwich Amy Reines Ryan Urquhart Aarran W. Shaw
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords He II emissionX-ray binariesmetal-poor galaxiesstar-forming dwarfsionizing radiationHe III regionsChandra observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accreting X-ray sources fall short of the extreme-UV output needed to explain He II emission in metal-poor dwarf galaxies.

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

The paper examines 21 nearby star-forming dwarf galaxies that display nebular He II 4686 emission without Wolf-Rayet signatures. Chandra X-ray data combined with optical stellar population synthesis modeling are used to compare the EUV ionizing photons required to sustain the observed line against the photons supplied by accreting X-ray sources. The inferred EUV output from the X-ray sources is found to be systematically lower than required, even though the galaxies obey standard X-ray luminosity scaling relations. This shortfall indicates that accreting X-ray binaries alone cannot account for the full He II-ionizing photon budget in these environments. The work therefore points to the need for additional or alternative hard-radiation sources in metal-poor star-forming regions.

Core claim

In a sample of 21 galaxies, the EUV photon output inferred from observed X-ray luminosities via standard spectral models falls below the level required to produce the measured He II 4686 emission, while the X-ray properties remain consistent with established empirical relations; therefore accreting X-ray sources cannot supply the observed He II-ionizing photon budget.

What carries the argument

Comparison of the EUV ionizing continuum required by observed He II 4686 line strengths against the continuum inferred from Chandra X-ray luminosities using standard spectral models, supplemented by stellar population synthesis.

If this is right

  • Accreting X-ray sources alone cannot power the observed He III regions.
  • Metal-poor star-forming galaxies require additional hard EUV radiation sources.
  • Ionization models for low-metallicity environments must incorporate non-X-ray-binary contributors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of reionization in the early universe may need to reduce the assumed contribution from X-ray binaries in dwarf-galaxy analogs.
  • Targeted searches for hot stellar populations or other exotic EUV emitters in these galaxies could resolve the photon-budget shortfall.
  • Repeated X-ray monitoring could test whether transient or variable sources were underrepresented in the existing observations.

Load-bearing premise

Standard spectral models accurately convert observed X-ray luminosities into EUV photon output and that the Chandra observations plus synthesis models capture all relevant ionizing sources without missing variable or undetected contributions.

What would settle it

Deeper X-ray observations or revised spectral models that yield an EUV photon production rate matching or exceeding the rate required by the observed He II 4686 emission strengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05548 by Aarran W. Shaw, Amy Reines, Andrea H. Prestwich, Christopher Ellis, Elena Gallo, Erica Thygesen, Ivan Altunin, Manfred W. Pakull, Richard M. Plotkin, Roberto Soria, Ryan Tanner, Ryan Urquhart.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SDSS finding charts for our 21 target galaxies, ordered by increasing right ascension. Each panel shows the SDSS image of a target galaxy (Abazajian et al. 2009), with the position of the SDSS 3′′ spectroscopic fiber indicated by the centered white circle. The green scale bar in the top left of each plot represents the length of 10′′ view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optical emission-line diagnostic diagrams for our galaxy sample. Left: The standard BPT diagram (Baldwin et al. 1981) showing log([O III] λ5007/Hβ) versus log([N II] λ6584/Hα). The solid black and red curves denote the Kewley et al. (2001) and Kauffmann et al. (2003) demarcations, respectively, separating star-forming (H II), composite (Comp), and AGN/shock-dominated regions. Right: The log(He II λ4686/Hβ)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SDSS finding charts for our 7 targets with X-ray detections, ordered by increasing right ascension. Each top panel shows the SDSS image of a target galaxy (Abazajian et al. 2009), with the position of the SDSS 3′′ spectroscopic fiber indicated by the centered yellow circle. Red circles indicate the relative positions and positional uncertainty of Chandra X-ray detections within each galaxy (See view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of a stellar population synthesis model fit to SDSS photometry and spectroscopy for a single galaxy (Mrk 1434) using Prospector code (Johnson et al. 2021). On the bottom plot the black points with error bars show the observed photometric fluxes (scaled by a factor of five for visibility), while the red circles indicate the corre￾sponding best-fit photometric model values. The gray line represent… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the extrapolated unabsorbed EUV photon flux from observed X-ray sources, and the predicted ionizing photon flux required to produce the observed He II λ4686 emission for each galaxy in our sample. The predicted EUV flux is obtained by multiplying the required He II photon flux by 5.2. The dashed gray line marks the 1-to-1 relation, where the number of He II ionizing photons equals the ex… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Broadband SEDs for Chandra observations with detections. When multiple detections are available for a given source, only the brightest observation is shown. GALEX (Morrissey et al. 2007) FUV (upright triangles) and NUV (inverted triangles) energy fluxes are shown at their effective energies within the 4.4–9.2 eV band. Chandra 0.5–10 keV integrated fluxes (circles) are plotted at their effective energies wi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light-curves of NGC 5471, Mrk 1434, and J111746.30+174424.6, showing the 0.5-10 keV flux in log scale versus the MJD observation. Downward triangles indicate the non-detection upper limits when the galaxy was in view of the Chandra aimpoint but no X-ray emission was detected. Circles indicate a detection with error bars. Solid points represent fluxes obtained from the DiskBB Model and hollow represent flux… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Empirical X-ray luminosity scaling relations compared to our sample galaxies. The solid and dashed lines show the expected XRB luminosity as a function of star formation rate (SFR) and metallicity from Lehmer et al. (2010) and Brorby et al. (2016), respectively. Green points represent the 12 galaxies in our sample that we performed stellar population synthesis modelling on. SFRs and metallicities are deriv… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: X-ray transmission curves for sources in our subsample that we performed stellar population synthesis modelling on. Transmission is derived from their measured AV values and shaded regions show the 1σ uncertainty propagated from the reported AV errors. The vertical dashed line marks the lower bound of the Chandra bandpass (0.3 keV), while the shaded blue and red regions indicate the super-soft (0.054-0.3 k… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Non-parametric star formation histories (SFHs) derived for our subsample of 12 galaxies that we performed stellar population synthesis modelling on. All galaxies ex￾hibit recent bursts of star formation within the past 100 Myr. This may indicate unresolved, bursty SFHs with rapid and intense star formation episodes at the current epoch. 4.2. Other potential Sources of He II Both our population synthesis a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between our sample and the parent sample from Shirazi & Brinchmann (2012). The HeII/Hβ line ratio is plotted against the star formation rate (SFR; left) and gas-phase metallicity (12 + log O/H; right). Values for our sample are derived following the methodology described in Section 2.4.1, including the characteristic SFR averaged over the past 10 Myr. ray emission (LX ∼ 1036−38 erg s−1 ) on kil… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent observations of metal-poor, star-forming dwarf galaxies reveal He III regions, traced by nebular He II 4686 emission that require a strong source of extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) radiation. The origin of this hard ionizing radiation remains poorly understood, as standard stellar populations fail to account for it, posing key implications for the understanding of early galaxy formation. We present a systematic Chandra X-ray study of 21 nearby star-forming galaxies with He II emission but lacking Wolf-Rayet spectral signatures. Using 7 new and 36 archival Chandra X-ray observations combined with optical stellar population synthesis modelling, we constrain the ionizing continuum required to sustain the observed He II line, the ionizing continuum available from X-ray objects, and the properties of the host H II regions. We find that the inferred EUV output from accreting X-ray sources in our sample is systematically lower than what is required to produce the observed He II emission. Our sample is consistent with established empirical scaling relations for X-ray luminosity, indicating that this discrepancy cannot be attributed to an anomalously low number or luminosity of X-ray sources. These results indicate that accreting X-ray sources alone cannot account for the observed He II-ionizing photon budget, pointing to additional or alternative sources of hard EUV radiation in metal-poor star-forming environments. Potential alternative or additional contributors are discussed.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Chandra X-ray study of 21 nearby metal-poor star-forming dwarf galaxies that exhibit nebular He II 4686 emission without Wolf-Rayet signatures. Combining 7 new and 36 archival Chandra observations with optical stellar population synthesis modeling, the authors compare the EUV photon budget required to sustain the observed He II line (derived from H II region parameters) against the EUV output inferred from the detected X-ray sources. They report that the X-ray sources fall systematically short of the required He II-ionizing photons, that the sample follows standard X-ray luminosity scaling relations, and therefore conclude that accreting X-ray binaries alone cannot account for the observed emission, pointing instead to alternative hard-EUV sources.

Significance. If the quantitative discrepancy holds after validation of the spectral extrapolations, the result would be significant for high-energy astrophysics and reionization studies: it would disfavor XRBs as the dominant source of He II-ionizing radiation in metal-poor environments and strengthen the case for alternative mechanisms (e.g., stripped stars or other exotic sources). The multi-object sample and direct comparison to empirical scaling relations are positive features that move the field beyond single-object case studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (X-ray to EUV conversion): The central claim that inferred EUV output from XRBs is systematically lower than required rests on extrapolation of observed 0.5–8 keV luminosities to E > 54 eV photons using fixed spectral templates (absorbed power-law or disk-blackbody). No sensitivity analysis is presented on the spectral parameters (photon index, column density, or possible supersoft components) that are unconstrained by Chandra data; any systematic shift in the EUV tail would remove the reported discrepancy.
  2. [§5.1] §5.1 (Comparison to required photon budget): The quantitative shortfall is presented without propagated uncertainties from the X-ray spectral model assumptions or from the stellar synthesis models used for the non-XRB continuum; the error budget on the ratio of available to required Q(He II) is therefore incomplete and load-bearing for the conclusion.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §2: The total number of unique galaxies versus total pointings (7 new + 36 archival) should be clarified to avoid double-counting.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent comparison plot): Error bars on the model-predicted EUV rates and on the required photon rates are missing or unclear, making it difficult to assess the statistical significance of the systematic offset.
  3. [§6] §6 (Discussion): The text mentions consistency with empirical X-ray scaling relations but does not cite the specific relations or show the comparison data in a figure or table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the manuscript's significance and for the constructive major comments, which help improve the robustness of our analysis. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to incorporate additional sensitivity tests and error propagation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (X-ray to EUV conversion): The central claim that inferred EUV output from XRBs is systematically lower than required rests on extrapolation of observed 0.5–8 keV luminosities to E > 54 eV photons using fixed spectral templates (absorbed power-law or disk-blackbody). No sensitivity analysis is presented on the spectral parameters (photon index, column density, or possible supersoft components) that are unconstrained by Chandra data; any systematic shift in the EUV tail would remove the reported discrepancy.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the EUV extrapolation relies on standard spectral templates (absorbed power-law with Γ ≈ 1.7 and typical N_H for these low-metallicity systems, or disk-blackbody for softer sources) because Chandra data provide limited constraints on the soft tail. We agree a sensitivity analysis is valuable. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix or expanded §4 subsection that systematically varies Γ between 1.4–2.2, N_H by factors of 2–5, and includes a possible supersoft blackbody component (kT = 0.1–0.3 keV) normalized to the observed hard-band flux. We will demonstrate that even under these excursions the inferred Q(He II) from XRBs remains at least an order of magnitude below the required budget for the majority of the sample, preserving the central conclusion while quantifying the robustness of the result. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.1] §5.1 (Comparison to required photon budget): The quantitative shortfall is presented without propagated uncertainties from the X-ray spectral model assumptions or from the stellar synthesis models used for the non-XRB continuum; the error budget on the ratio of available to required Q(He II) is therefore incomplete and load-bearing for the conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that a complete error budget is necessary. The current presentation reports measurement uncertainties on X-ray luminosities and on the observed He II fluxes but does not fully propagate the systematic uncertainties arising from the choice of spectral template or from the stellar-population synthesis parameters (age, metallicity, IMF). In the revision we will add Monte Carlo error propagation in §5.1: we will draw spectral parameters from plausible priors, re-compute the EUV extrapolation for each realization, and similarly vary the synthesis-model outputs within their observational priors. The resulting distribution on the ratio of available to required Q(He II) will be reported, allowing us to state the significance of the shortfall with quantified uncertainties. This addition will not change the main result but will make the quantitative claim more rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct comparison of X-ray data to He II requirements via external models.

full rationale

The paper measures Chandra 0.5-8 keV luminosities, applies standard XRB spectral templates to extrapolate EUV output, and compares the result to the Q(He II) needed to match observed 4686 luminosities plus H II region parameters. These templates and scaling relations are cited as established and independent of the current sample; the paper reports consistency with prior empirical L_X-SFR relations rather than deriving them from its own data. No equations reduce a fitted parameter to a prediction of itself, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and the central discrepancy is presented as an observational result rather than a definitional identity. Minor self-citation risk exists only in the use of standard models, but this does not load-bear the claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical conversions from X-ray luminosity to EUV output and on the assumption that the observed X-ray sources represent the full population capable of contributing to the ionizing budget.

free parameters (1)
  • X-ray to EUV conversion efficiency
    Conversion factor used to translate observed X-ray luminosities into expected EUV ionizing photons; value depends on assumed spectral shape of accreting sources.
axioms (2)
  • standard math He II 4686 emission traces a photon flux above the 54 eV ionization edge of He+
    Basic atomic physics invoked to link observed line strength to required EUV continuum.
  • domain assumption Chandra observations detect the complete relevant X-ray source population
    Assumes no significant contribution from sources below detection threshold or from highly variable sources missed in the observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5604 in / 1474 out tokens · 69175 ms · 2026-05-08T06:33:02.830434+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

119 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Coll...

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  4. [4]

    R., Lehmer, B

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Lehmer, B. D., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/152

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/152 2013

  5. [5]

    Brammer, G. B. 2018, ApJ, 859, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab7fa 2018

  6. [6]

    C., Stanway, E

    Bray, J. C., Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1348 19 http://www.astropy.org

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1348 2025

  7. [7]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x 2004

  8. [8]

    C., Kaastra, J

    Brinkman, A. C., Kaastra, J. S., van der Meer, R. L. J., et al. 2002, A&A, 396, 761, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020918

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020918 2002

  9. [9]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 2346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu736

    Brorby, M., Kaaret, P., & Prestwich, A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu736

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu736 2014

  10. [10]

    Brorby, M., Kaaret, P., Prestwich, A., & Mirabel, I. F. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4081, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw284

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw284 2016

  11. [11]

    J., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  12. [12]

    M., Eldridge, J

    Byrne, C. M., Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf178

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf178 2025

  13. [13]

    2025, ApJL, 989, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf5bc

    Cai, S., Cai, Z., Lyu, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf5bc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf5bc 2025

  14. [14]

    2013, Cambridge University Press

    Calzetii, D. 2013, Cambridge University Press

    2013

  15. [15]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  16. [16]

    1979, Astrophysical Journal, 228, 939

    Cash, W. 1979, Astrophysical Journal, 228, 939

    1979

  17. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 2024

  18. [18]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000a, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250 —. 2000b, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250 28

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/309250

  19. [19]

    M., et al

    Charlot, S., & Longhetti, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 887, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04260.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04260.x 2001

  20. [20]

    Modeling the Panchromatic Spectral Energy Distributions of Galaxies

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  21. [21]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  22. [22]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  23. [23]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 de Mello, D. F., Schaerer, D., Heldmann, J., & Leitherer, C. 1998, ApJ, 507, 199, doi: 10.1086/306317

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 2007

  24. [24]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1996, ApJS, 102, 161, doi: 10.1086/192255

    work page doi:10.1086/192255 1996

  25. [25]

    A., Fischera, J., Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., Fischera, J., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 177, doi: 10.1086/508261

    work page doi:10.1086/508261 2006

  26. [26]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Dotter, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  27. [27]

    R., Pols, O

    Dougherty, S. M., Williams, P. M., & Pollacco, D. L. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 143, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03504.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03504.x 2000

  28. [28]

    M., Pellizza, L

    Douna, V. M., Pellizza, L. J., Mirabel, I. F., & Pedrosa, S. E. 2015, A&A, 579, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525617

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525617 2015

  29. [29]

    T., & Li, A

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

    work page doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  30. [30]

    R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B

    Drout, M. R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, doi: 10.1126/science.ade4970

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ade4970 2023

  31. [31]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-100646

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-100646 2022

  32. [32]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  33. [33]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., S´ anchez Almeida, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 145, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/145

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/145 2016

  34. [34]

    R., et al

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a 2019

  35. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba004

    Estrada-Carpenter, V., Papovich, C., Momcheva, I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba004

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba004 2020

  36. [36]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 Falc´ on-Barroso, J., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116842

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  37. [37]

    B., Bolatto, A

    Fisher, D. B., Bolatto, A. D., Herrera-Camus, R., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 186, doi: 10.1038/nature12765

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12765 2014

  38. [38]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/41

    Fragos, T., Lehmer, B., Tremmel, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/41 2013

  39. [39]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  40. [40]

    P., Bautz, M

    Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Ford, P. G., Nousek, J. A., & Jr., G. R. R. 2003, in X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy, ed. J. E. Truemper & H. D. Tananbaum, Vol. 4851, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 28 – 44, doi: 10.1117/12.461599

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461599 2003

  41. [41]

    Skillman, E. D. 1991, ApJ, 373, 458, doi: 10.1086/170065

    work page doi:10.1086/170065 1991

  42. [42]

    R., Johnson, B

    Garofali, K., Basu-Zych, A. R., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 960, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a6a 2024

  43. [43]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Gelbord, J. M., Mullaney, J. R., & Ward, M. J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 172, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14961.x G¨ otberg, Y., Drout, M. R., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14961.x 2009

  44. [44]

    Greene, J

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  45. [45]

    G., Izotov, Y

    Guseva, N. G., Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 2000, ApJ, 531, 776, doi: 10.1086/308489 G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    work page doi:10.1086/308489 2000

  46. [46]

    C., & DeNicola, L

    Houck, J. C., & DeNicola, L. A. 2000, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX, ASP Conference Proceedings, 216

    2000

  47. [47]

    I., Guseva, N

    Izotov, Y. I., Guseva, N. G., Fricke, K. J., & Henkel, C. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 623, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834768

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834768 2019

  48. [48]

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

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Kaaret, P., Ward, M. J., & Zezas, A. 2004, MNRAS, 351, L83, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08020.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08020.x 2004

  50. [50]

    P., Telford, G., & Senchyna, P

    Katz, H., Ji, A. P., Telford, G., & Senchyna, P. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 106, doi: 10.33232/001c.126253

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.126253 2024

  51. [51]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346

    2003

  52. [52]

    M., Guerrero, M

    Kehrig, C., V´ ılchez, J. M., Guerrero, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1081, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1920

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1920 2018

  53. [53]

    M., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al

    Kehrig, C., V´ ılchez, J. M., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al. 2015, ApJL, 801, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/l28 2015

  54. [54]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 29

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  55. [55]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, doi: 10.1086/321545

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  56. [56]

    A., Kennicutt, Jr., R

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., & Pizagno, J. L. 1999, ApJ, 514, 544, doi: 10.1086/306987

    work page doi:10.1086/306987 1999

  57. [57]

    F., Blanc, G

    Kollmeier, J., Anderson, S. F., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 274

    2019

  58. [58]

    M., et al

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x Lan¸ con, A., & Wood, P. R. 2000, A&AS, 146, 217, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000269

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  59. [59]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3838

    Lecroq, M., Charlot, S., Bressan, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3838

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3838 2024

  60. [60]

    D., Alexander, D

    Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 559, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/559

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/559 2010

  61. [61]

    D., Tyler, J

    Lehmer, B. D., Tyler, J. B., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/126 2015

  62. [62]

    D., Eufrasio, R

    Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Basu-Zych, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcec1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcec1 2021

  63. [63]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

  64. [64]

    D., Conroy C., van Dokkum P

    Byler, N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  65. [65]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

  66. [66]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/10

    Liu, J. 2011, ApJS, 192, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/10 2011

  67. [67]

    and Conroy, Charlie and Dav

    Lower, S., Narayanan, D., Leja, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa7 2020

  68. [68]

    2002, RMxAA, 38, 97, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205021

    Luridiana, V., Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., & Peimbert, A. 2002, RMxAA, 38, 97, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205021

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0205021 2002

  69. [69]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V. 2019, ApJ, 884, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4197

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4197 2019

  70. [70]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 6, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0662-2

    Mezcua, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 6, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0662-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0662-2 2019

  71. [71]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd

    Mondal, C., Saha, K., Borgohain, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd 2025

  72. [72]

    A., Cenko, S

    Moon, D.-S., Harrison, F. A., Cenko, S. B., & Shariff, J. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 731, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L32

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l32 2011

  73. [73]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , author =

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 682, doi: 10.1086/520512 NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). 2019, NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), IPAC, doi: 10.26132/NED1

    work page doi:10.1086/520512 2007

  74. [74]

    2024, A&A, 681, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346769

    Nersesian, A., van der Wel, A., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346769

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346769 2024

  75. [75]

    R., et al

    Nersesian, A., van der Wel, A., Gallazzi, A. R., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452662 2025

  76. [76]

    Analysis of galaxy SEDs from far-UV to far-IR with CIGALE: Studying a SINGS test sample

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 2009

  77. [77]

    M., & Schaerer, D

    Oskinova, L. M., & Schaerer, D. 2022, A&A, 661, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142520

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142520 2022

  78. [78]

    , keywords =

    Pacifici, C., Iyer, K. G., Mobasher, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acacff 2023

  79. [79]

    W., & Angebault, L

    Pakull, M. W., & Angebault, L. P. 1986, Nature, 322, 511, doi: 10.1038/322511a0

    work page doi:10.1038/322511a0 1986

  80. [80]

    Optical Counterparts of Ultraluminous X-Ray Sources

    Pakull, M. W., & Mirioni, L. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0202488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0202488 2002

Showing first 80 references.