Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 79 references

Dust–star formation relation breaks down beyond local universe

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 ↗

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 19:35 UTC pith:UVS6KGR7

load-bearing objection Solid empirical result: resolved A_V–Σ_SFR relation is not universal, with a specific untested systematic worth flagging the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07122 v1 pith:UVS6KGR7 submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.GA

The MAGPI Survey: Evidence for Non-Universal Resolved Dust Attenuation Relations Beyond the Local Universe

A. Mailvaganam , T. Zafar , P. Corcho-Caballero , S. Salim , Y. Koyama , K. E. Harborne , C. D. P. Lagos , J. T. Mendel
show 34 more authors
E. Wisnioski I. U. Aalia S. Ayyappan S. Barsanti A. J. Battisti J. Bland-Hawthorn I. Breda S. Carlson Q.-H. Chen B. Courtney-Barrer S. M. Croom S. Ellis C. Foster E. Gjergo K. Grasha S. Gurung-Lopez S. Mobina Hosseini S. Jeon X. Lyu T. Mukherjee M. Mun Hye-Jin Park Y. Peng L. A. Porta J. Prathap A. Raidani R. S. Remus B. S. Salmasi G. Sharma Sarah M. Sweet Dian P. Triani L. M. Valenzuela G. van de Ven Bodo L. Ziegler
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dust attenuationstar formation rate surface densityBalmer decrementresolved galaxy propertiesstar-forming main sequenceintermediate redshiftMAGPI surveyMaNGA survey
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 paper claims that the spatially resolved relationship between dust attenuation and star formation rate surface density — a relation calibrated in the local universe and widely used to correct galaxy measurements — is not universal. By comparing 178 galaxies at intermediate redshift (z~0.3) from the MAGPI survey with local galaxies from MaNGA, the authors find that distant galaxies show systematically more dust obscuration at a given star formation rate density, even after matching galaxies in stellar mass and position relative to the star-forming main sequence. The excess attenuation is strongest in galaxies below the main sequence (those transitioning toward quiescence) and nearly absent in galaxies above it. This means dust attenuation on kiloparsec scales depends not just on local star formation but on the global evolutionary state of the host galaxy, and that applying local calibrations to intermediate-redshift galaxies introduces systematic biases in inferred star formation rates.

Core claim

The resolved A_V–Σ_SFR relation is not universal across redshift. At fixed star formation rate surface density, galaxies at z~0.3 are more dust-attenuated than local galaxies by ~0.28 mag on average, with the excess reaching ~0.40 mag in galaxies below the star-forming main sequence and dropping to ~0.07 mag above it. The dependence on global star-forming state implies that nebular attenuation is jointly regulated by local star formation activity and the host galaxy's evolutionary state, with the decoupling more pronounced at intermediate redshift.

What carries the argument

The Balmer decrement — the observed ratio of the Hα to Hβ hydrogen emission lines — serves as the primary diagnostic. Under Case B recombination, the intrinsic ratio is fixed at 2.86; deviations from this value measure dust reddening along the line of sight to ionised gas in star-forming regions. The paper constructs spatially resolved attenuation maps from this ratio for 178 galaxies, then compares the resulting A_V–Σ_SFR relation against the local benchmark from MaNGA, using Monte Carlo matching in stellar mass and offset from the star-forming main sequence to isolate the intrinsic difference.

Load-bearing premise

The Balmer decrement is assumed to trace the same physical dust geometry at z~0.3 as in the local universe. If intermediate-redshift observations preferentially sample more embedded or dustier star-forming regions due to surface brightness selection effects not fully captured by the paper's luminosity threshold tests, part of the observed excess could be observational rather than physical.

What would settle it

If the A_V–Σ_SFR relation at intermediate redshift were shown to match the local relation when a more complete or unbiased sample of HII regions is observed — for instance, with deeper spectroscopy recovering the faint Hβ emission from less-obscured regions that the current SNR>3 threshold misses — the observed offset would shrink or vanish, undermining the non-universality claim.

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

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 / 8 minor

Summary. This paper uses spatially resolved Balmer-decrement measurements from the MAGPI survey (178 galaxies at 0.25 < z < 0.42) to test whether the locally calibrated resolved A_V–Sigma_SFR relation from MaNGA (Paper I) remains valid at intermediate redshift. The authors find that MAGPI spaxels exhibit systematically higher A_V at fixed Sigma_SFR than MaNGA, with an overall median offset of ~0.35 mag. After matching galaxies in stellar mass and Delta_SFMS via Monte Carlo realizations, the offset persists: strongest below the SFMS (Delta A_V ~ 0.40 mag), weaker on the SFMS (~0.28 mag), and minimal above the SFMS (~0.07 mag). Robustness tests for detection limits, PSF matching, environmental selection, and alternative SFMS parameterization are presented. The authors conclude that the resolved A_V–Sigma_SFR relation is not universal and that locally calibrated attenuation prescriptions may not adequately describe intermediate-redshift galaxies, particularly those below the SFMS.

Significance. The question of whether locally calibrated dust attenuation relations remain valid at higher redshift is important for spatially resolved studies of galaxy evolution, as systematic biases in A_V propagate directly into derived Sigma_SFR and other physical quantities. The paper's strength lies in its careful matched comparison framework: Monte Carlo matching in M* and Delta_SFMS isolates the redshift/population effect from simple population mixing, and the suite of robustness tests (detection limits, PSF matching, environment, alternative SFMS) is thorough and well-designed. The finding that the offset depends on Delta_SFMS — strongest for galaxies below the SFMS — is a novel and physically interesting result that connects resolved dust properties to global evolutionary state. The intra-MAGPI redsplit consistency check (Section 5, Fig. 7), while limited in dynamic range, adds internal corroboration. The paper is suitable for the journal's scope and will be of interest to the extragalactic IFS community.

major comments (3)
  1. The most important unaddressed systematic is the potential for differential Hβ stellar absorption correction residuals between MAGPI and MaNGA. The authors note (Section 3.1) that PPXF/GANDALF models the stellar continuum before measuring emission-line fluxes for both surveys, and Battisti et al. (2026) is cited for MAGPI-specific details. However, the paper does not directly test whether the Hβ absorption correction performs equivalently at the different SNR regimes and spectral resolutions of MUSE (z~0.3, SNR>3 for Hβ) versus MaNGA (z<0.1, reconstructed to SNR>3 but intrinsically higher quality). This matters because: (1) a 0.35 mag A_V offset corresponds to only a ~6% difference in the Balmer decrement (BD ~ 3.03 vs 2.86), which is within the plausible range of stellar absorption correction residuals at SNR~3; (2) the Delta_SFMS dependence of the offset (0.40 mag below, 0.07 mag above
  2. the SFMS) is exactly the pattern expected if Hβ absorption corrections are less accurate for older stellar populations (which dominate below the SFMS) at lower SNR — older populations have stronger Hβ absorption features, making the correction harder and residual under-correction inflating BD. The detection-limit test (Section 4.6) addresses whether different spaxels are selected but not whether the same spaxels would yield the same BD in both surveys. I recommend the authors add a direct test or quantitative discussion of this systematic. Possible approaches include: (a) injecting mock emission lines into both MAGPI- and MaNGA-like spectra with known BD and recovering A_V to quantify any survey-dependent bias; (b) comparing the distribution of Hβ equivalent widths or absorption corrections between matched MAGPI and MaNGA samples; or (c) at minimum, a quantitative discussion of why the p
  3. PPXF/GANDALF correction is expected to be equivalent across surveys despite different SNR and spectral resolution, with reference to any existing validation of this pipeline at low SNR. This is load-bearing for the central claim because if even ~0.1–0.15 mag of the offset below the SFMS is attributable to absorption correction residuals, the physical interpretation is materially affected.
minor comments (8)
  1. Section 3.1: The SNR>3 threshold for MAGPI is lower than the SNR>5 used in Paper I for MaNGA. The authors reconstruct MaNGA maps at SNR>3 for consistency, which is appropriate. However, it would be useful to briefly quantify how many spaxels/galaxies are added or lost in MaNGA when moving from SNR>5 to SNR>3, and whether the MaNGA A_V–Sigma_SFR relation changes when this threshold is shifted.
  2. Section 4.1: The Delta_SFMS bin boundaries (-0.3, +0.3) are adopted without explicit justification. A brief comment on the sensitivity of the results to these boundaries would strengthen the analysis, particularly given that the 'above SFMS' bin contains only 15% of MAGPI galaxies.
  3. Figure 2: The y-axis range is not specified in the caption. For the reader's benefit, it would help to state the A_V range shown and ensure the MaNGA error bars (red squares) are visible — they appear small in the figure.
  4. Table 1: The intercept 'b' values (4.02, 2.88, 2.18) are large because the fit is in log10(Sigma_SFR) units. A footnote or caption note clarifying the units of the fit (log10(Sigma_SFR / Msun yr^-1 kpc^-2)) would help readers interpret these values.
  5. Section 4.4: The matching tolerance of ±0.1 dex in both log M* and Delta_SFMS is reasonable, but the fraction of MAGPI galaxies that find a MaNGA match within this tolerance is not stated. Please report the match success rate.
  6. Section 5, Fig. 7: The intra-MAGPI redshift split test is a nice consistency check, but the sample sizes in each redshift bin are not given. Please state N_galaxies in each bin and note the caveat about limited statistical power more explicitly.
  7. The paper uses both 'A_V' and 'AV' (without subscript) in different places (e.g., abstract vs. equations). Standardizing notation throughout would improve readability.
  8. Reference list: Battisti et al. (2026) is cited for MAGPI emission-line products but appears to be 'submitted' — please update with final reference details if available by the time of revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical cross-survey measurement, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that MAGPI galaxies at z~0.3 show systematically higher A_V at fixed Sigma_SFR than local MaNGA galaxies, with the offset depending on Delta_SFMS. This is an empirical measurement comparing two independent datasets (MAGPI and MaNGA), not a theoretical derivation. The A_V values are computed from observed Balmer decrements (Halpha/Hbeta), and Sigma_SFR from dust-corrected Halpha luminosities — these are independently measured quantities, not defined in terms of each other. The linear fit (Eq. 1, A_V = a*log10(Sigma_SFR) + b) is descriptive, not predictive: the coefficients in Table 1 summarize the observed relation rather than deriving it from a prior principle. The self-citation to Paper I (Mailvaganam et al. 2026) provides the local MaNGA benchmark and methodology, but the result does not reduce to this citation — the MAGPI data are independently observed and analyzed. The Delta_SFMS is computed from an external SFMS relation (Renzini & Peng 2015), not self-defined. The matched comparison (Section 4.4) uses Monte Carlo matching in M* and Delta_SFMS, but the A_V offset is measured, not constructed. The robustness tests (detection limits, PSF matching, environment) are genuine checks against external data, not circular validations. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by definition or by a self-citation that is itself unverified. The one minor self-citation (Paper I for the MaNGA comparison sample and methodology) is not load-bearing for the central claim, which stands on the independent MAGPI measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical study with no new theoretical entities or postulated particles. All assumptions are standard domain assumptions in extragalactic astronomy. The free parameters are methodological choices (thresholds, binning, tolerances) rather than physically fitted constants.

free parameters (8)
  • SNR threshold (Halpha, Hbeta) = 3
    Chosen to reflect higher redshift and lower typical SNR of Hbeta in MAGPI; lower than the SNR>5 used in Paper I for MaNGA.
  • BPT classification threshold = Kauffmann et al. 2003 demarcation
    Standard choice to select star-forming spaxels; adopted from Paper I.
  • Intrinsic Balmer decrement ratio = 2.86
    Case B recombination assumption; standard but depends on electron temperature and density.
  • Delta_SFMS bin boundaries = [-0.3, 0.3]
    Chosen to separate below/on/above SFMS; not derived from data.
  • Matching tolerance (log M*, Delta_SFMS) = 0.1 dex
    Tolerance for Monte Carlo matching between MAGPI and MaNGA; affects sample size and match quality.
  • N_MC realisations = 250
    Number of Monte Carlo iterations for matched comparison; affects uncertainty estimates.
  • Halpha luminosity threshold for detection test = 5.6e37 erg/s
    Median detection limit for MAGPI at z~0.30; used for robustness test on MaNGA.
  • Linear fit coefficients (a, b) per Delta_SFMS bin = Table 1
    Fitted to MAGPI spaxel data; descriptive rather than predictive.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination holds in HII regions with intrinsic Halpha/Hbeta = 2.86
    Standard assumption in extragalactic studies; weak dependence on gas temperature acknowledged in Section 1.
  • domain assumption The Calzetti (2001) attenuation law is applicable to nebular emission at z~0.3
    Used to convert Balmer decrement to A_V; widely adopted but may vary with redshift and metallicity.
  • domain assumption BPT-selected spaxels at z~0.3 and z<0.1 probe comparable physical regions
    Underlies the resolved comparison; different physical resolutions (~2.3 kpc vs ~1-2 kpc) could affect this.
  • domain assumption The Renzini & Peng (2015) SFMS is a valid reference for both MAGPI and MaNGA
    Used to compute Delta_SFMS; tested with alternative MAGPI-specific SFMS from Mun et al. (2024) with unchanged results.
  • domain assumption Dust-corrected Halpha luminosity traces star formation rate via Kennicutt (1998)
    Standard SFR calibration; assumes Halpha is not significantly affected by diffuse ionized gas or AGN contamination.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 29034 in / 3282 out tokens · 467684 ms · 2026-07-09T19:35:33.551571+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the spatially resolved relation between dust attenuation ($A_V$) and star formation rate surface density ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$) in galaxies from the MAGPI survey ($0.25 < z < 0.42$). Using Balmer-decrement-based attenuation maps for 178 galaxies, we investigate whether the locally calibrated resolved $A_V$--$\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ relation remains valid at intermediate redshift by comparing MAGPI with the local relation measured from MaNGA. We find a clear positive correlation between $A_V$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ in MAGPI, with systematically higher attenuation than in MaNGA at fixed $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. After matching galaxies in stellar mass ($M_{*}$) and offset from the star-forming main sequence ($\Delta$SFMS), MAGPI galaxies remain more attenuated than MaNGA galaxies at fixed $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. The attenuation excess is strongest for galaxies below the SFMS ($\Delta A_V \sim 0.40$ mag), weaker for galaxies on the SFMS ($\Delta A_V \sim 0.28$ mag), and minimal for galaxies above the SFMS ($\Delta A_V \sim 0.07$ mag). The dependence of the offset on $\Delta$SFMS suggests that nebular attenuation on kpc scales is regulated not only by local star formation activity, but also by the global evolutionary state of the host galaxy. Together, these results indicate that the resolved $A_V$--$\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ relation is not universal, and that locally calibrated attenuation relations may not fully describe galaxies at intermediate redshift. This highlights the need for attenuation calibrations that account for galaxy population and redshift when interpreting spatially resolved galaxy properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07122 by A. J. Battisti, A. Mailvaganam, A. Raidani, B. Courtney-Barrer, Bodo L. Ziegler, B. S. Salmasi, C. D. P. Lagos, C. Foster, Dian P. Triani, E. Gjergo, E. Wisnioski, G. Sharma, G. van de Ven, Hye-Jin Park, I. Breda, I. U. Aalia, J. Bland-Hawthorn, J. Prathap, J. T. Mendel, K. E. Harborne, K. Grasha, L. A. Porta, L. M. Valenzuela, M. Mun, P. Corcho-Caballero, Q.-H. Chen, R. S. Remus, Sarah M. Sweet, S. Ayyappan, S. Barsanti, S. Carlson, S. Ellis, S. Gurung-Lopez, S. Jeon, S. M. Croom, S. Mobina Hosseini, S. Salim, T. Mukherjee, T. Zafar, X. Lyu, Y. Koyama, Y. Peng.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relation between AV and log ΣSFR for the MAGPI sample. Grey points show individual MAGPI spaxels, with black contours indicating the 50% and 90% density levels of the MAGPI distribution. Blue circles show the median AV values in bins of log ΣSFR, with error bars representing the 16th–84th percentile range. For comparison, red squares show the corre￾sponding median relation measured from the MaNGA sample in… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of MaNGA (red) and MAGPI (blue) galaxies in our sam￾ple in the stellar mass–∆SFMS plane. The top and right panels show the corresponding normalised distributions of stellar mass and ∆SFMS, respec￾tively, with dashed coloured lines indicating the medians and shaded regions showing the 16th–84th percentile ranges. Black dashed horizontal lines mark the adopted ∆SFMS bin boundaries used to group … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relation between AV and log10 ΣSFR for the MAGPI and MaNGA samples, split by ∆SFMS. The green, orange, and magenta colours show galaxies below, on, and above the SFMS, respectively. Individual points show MAGPI star-forming spaxels, while the solid curves show the median MAGPI AV in bins of log10 ΣSFR. The shaded regions represent the 16th–84th per￾centile range of the MAGPI spaxel distribution within each… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the resolved AV profiles of MAGPI and matched MaNGA galaxies as a function of log10 ΣSFR (left column) and R/Re (right column), split by global ∆SFMS. Rows show galaxies below, on, and above the SFMS, respectively. Blue curves represent MAGPI galaxies and red curves represent the matched MaNGA comparison sample. Thin curves show individual galaxy profiles, while thick curves with circular mar… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of imposing a MAGPI-like Hα luminosity threshold (LHα,lim = 5.6 × 1037 erg s−1 ) on the MaNGA comparison sample. The top panel shows the median AV –ΣSFR relation for the original MaNGA sample and for the MaNGA sample after applying the detection cut, with the MAGPI relation shown for reference. The bottom panel shows the difference between the two MaNGA relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resolved dust attenuation difference as a function of star formation rate surface density, log10 ΣSFR, for matched MAGPI galaxies. The attenuation offset is defined as ∆AV = A high-z V − Alow-z V , comparing galaxies in the redshift ranges 0.30 < z < 0.45 (high-z) and 0.25 < z ≤ 0.30 (low-z). Galaxies are matched in stellar mass and offset from the star-forming main sequence (∆SFMS). The solid line shows t… 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

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5083

    Abdurro’uf, & Akiyama, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5083

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    K., Driver, S

    Andrews, S. K., Driver, S. P., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1342

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    G., & Menzel, D

    Baker, J. G., & Menzel, D. H. 1938, ApJ, 88, 52

    work page 1938

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    K., Utomo, D., Bolatto, A

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Utomo, D., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 2651

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R

    Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 13

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    J., Muller, E

    Battisti, A. J., Muller, E. G. M., Wisnioski, E., et al. 2026, The MAGPI Survey: Emission Line Products Data Release and the Role of Spectroscopic Aper- ture Covering Fraction on the Balmer Decrement–Stellar Mass Relation, submitted

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    J., Bagley, M

    Battisti, A. J., Bagley, M. B., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4431

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 151

    Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Tremonti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 151

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., Nedelchev, B., et al. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 353, Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, ed. M. Valluri & J. A. Sellwood, 284–285

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    2013, A&A, 554, A70

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V., Gruppioni, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A70

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582

    work page 1994

  15. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    2004, PASP, 116, 138

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    work page 1989

  18. [18]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 718

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    J., et al

    Chen, Q.-H., Grasha, K., Battisti, A. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 4801

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    M., Owers, M

    Croom, S. M., Owers, M. S., Scott, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 991

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 686

    Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., Walter, F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 686

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Davies, L. J. M., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 458

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, ApJ, 732, 100

    work page 2011

  25. [25]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    T., Lagos, C

    Foster, C., Mendel, J. T., Lagos, C. D. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e031

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Garn, T., & Best, P. N. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 421

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 20

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239 González Delgado, R

    Gobat, R., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239 González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A103

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Merrifield, M

    Greener, M. J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Merrifield, M. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2305

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    W., Tuffs, R

    Grootes, M. W., Tuffs, R. J., Popescu, C. C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 59

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Groves, B., Brinchmann, J., & Walcher, C. J. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1402

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Gunawardhana, M. L. P., Hopkins, A. M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2764

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Hartke, J., Kakkad, D., Reyes, C., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11448, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 114480V

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    R., Davis, T

    Hinton, S. R., Davis, T. M., Lidman, C., Glazebrook, K., & Lewis, G. F. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 61

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1982

    Janowiecki, S., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., Saintonge, A., & Wang, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1982

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 8

    Koyama, Y., Shimakawa, R., Yamamura, I., Kodama, T., & Hayashi, M. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 8

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 879 12 A

    Koyama, Y., Kodama, T., Hayashi, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 879 12 A. Mailvaganamet al

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 62

    Kreckel, K., Groves, B., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 62

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 72

    Li, N., Li, C., Mo, H., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 72

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    J., Carollo, C

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

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., Béthermin, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 6

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 43, e056

    Mailvaganam, A., Zafar, T., Corcho-Caballero, P., et al. 2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 43, e056

    work page 2026

  48. [48]

    F., Sánchez, S

    Mast, D., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A129

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    M., Cortese, L., Croom, S

    Medling, A. M., Cortese, L., Croom, S. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5194

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    2026, PASA, 43, e021

    Mukherjee, T., Zafar, T., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2026, PASA, 43, e021

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    J., et al

    Mun, M., Wisnioski, E., Battisti, A. J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 5072

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., van Dokkum, P. G., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, L9

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    J., Dokkum, P

    Nelson, E. J., Dokkum, P. G. v., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2016, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters, 817, L9

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    work page 1989

  56. [56]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    work page 2006

  57. [57]

    J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 4

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    2015, ApJ, 801, L29

    Renzini, A., & Peng, Y.-j. 2015, ApJ, 801, L29

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Bellstedt, S., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 905

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Davies, L. J. M., Driver, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3137

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    J., Fabello, S., et al

    Saintonge, A., Tacconi, L. J., Fabello, S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 73

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1749

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1749

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 529

    Salim, S., & Narayanan, D. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 529

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2 Sánchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    2014, A&A, 562, A30

    Santini, P., Maiolino, R., Magnelli, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A30

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    L., et al

    Sarzi, M., Falcón-Barroso, J., Davies, R. L., et al. 2017, GANDALF: Gas AND Absorption Line Fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1708.012

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    work page 2011

  70. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 83

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    C., Rudie, G

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

    work page 2014

  73. [73]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 179 Tomičić, N., Kreckel, K., Groves, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 155

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1760

    Wild, V., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1760

    work page 2011

  76. [76]

    N., Thronson, Jr., H

    Witt, A. N., Thronson, Jr., H. A., & Capuano, Jr., J. M. 1992, ApJ, 393, 611 Y esuf, H. M., & Ho, L. C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 177

    work page 1992

  77. [77]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 2731

    Zafar, T., & Møller, P. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2731

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    J., Yates, R

    Zahid, H. J., Yates, R. M., Kewley, L. J., & Kudritzki, R. P. 2013, ApJ, 763, 92

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    A., Casey, C

    Zavala, J. A., Casey, C. M., Manning, S. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 165 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia13 Table 2.Properties of the MAGPI galaxies used in this work. The table lists the global quantities used to define ∆SFMS, together with the fitted resolved AV –log10 ΣSFR relation. MAGPI ID z log 10 (M ⋆ /M ⊙ ) log 10 (SFR/M ⊙ yr −...

    work page 2021