Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

AGN and starburst coexistence in the short GRB100628A host galaxy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By fitting emission-line ratios and the radio-to-infrared spectral energy distribution of the GRB100628A field with composite photoionization–shock models, this paper argues that the proposed host galaxy C contains both an active galactic…

desk verdict A transparent modeling paper that claims AGN/starburst coexistence in a short GRB host, but the claim rests on an uncalibrated H-beta flux comparison and assumed-absent [OII] lines. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05157 v1 pith:IHLTBIQT submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.GA

M. Contini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radiationmechanismsshockwavesISMabundancesgalaxies:GRBhighredshiftactivegalacticnucleistarburstgalaxiesemission-lineratios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper models the emission lines and the radio-to-infrared spectral energy distribution of the galaxy complex around the short gamma-ray burst GRB100628A, using composite models that combine photoionization with shock heating. It argues that the likely host, galaxy C, contains two photoionizing sources at once: an active galactic nucleus, inferred from power-law fits rather than directly seen, and a starburst concentrated near the tidal tail. The AGN is claimed to dominate the spectra of four aligned regions (blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117), while the starburst dominates blob 98 and the two regions outside the inferred ionization cones. If right, this changes the picture of short GRB hosts as passive old systems and shows that modeling line ratios and SEDs together can reveal hidden active nuclei. The paper also applies AGN-dominated models to several other short GRB hosts and reports nitrogen-to-oxygen abundances that follow the AGN trend.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is a set of composite photoionization–shock models computed with the code suma, in which each observed blob is represented as a plane-parallel sequence of gas slabs heated by an incident radiation field and by a shock whose velocity, preshock density, and magnetic field are input parameters. The primary radiation is either a black body for a starburst or a power-law flux for an AGN, and the same model must reproduce both the line ratios and the continuum SED. The decisive criterion for choosing the dominant source is the comparison of the H-beta flux calculated by the starburst model with that calculated by the AGN model in each blob; the AGN is preferred where its H-beta flux is larger, and the spatial alignment of those blobs defines the inferred ionization bicone.

What would settle it

Re-observe the galaxy C field with a spectrograph setup that covers the [OII] 3727+ doublet (no GG435 filter) in blobs 3, 4, 98, 113, and 117; if the measured [OII]/Hβ ratios turn out comparable to the values observed in blobs 1 and 2 (roughly 4–7) rather than the very low values the models assume, the AGN-dominated classification of those blobs would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that galaxy C, the proposed host of GRB100628A, is a composite system in which an AGN and a starburst coexist. The AGN is not directly imaged; it emerges from fitting the observed line ratios with a power-law photoionization flux combined with shocks, whereas the starburst is represented by a black-body flux. Comparing the H-beta fluxes calculated at the nebula by each model places the AGN as the dominant ionizing source in blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117, aligned along the north-east/south-west slit, which the paper interprets as the axis of AGN ionization cones whose apex lies near blobs 117 and 3. Blobs 1 and 2, with lower ionization parameters and densities, are assigned to the ISM outside the cones, and blob 98, in the tidal tail, is starburst-dominated although also reached by the AGN flux. The calculated oxygen abundances are near solar everywhere while nitrogen varies by about a factor of ten; inside the X-ray error circle the 5.5 GHz radio point source is attributed to thermal bremsstrahlung from gas and the 9 GHz upper limit to dust reradiation, and the SED of galaxy D is reproduced by a 3000 K black body from an old stellar population.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that in blobs 3, 4, 98, 113, and 117 the missing blue [OII] 3727+ doublet was genuinely very weak, rather than just blocked by the GG435 filter, because the AGN-dominated fits for those regions are constrained by assuming those fluxes were low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short GRB host galaxies can harbor an active nucleus, so classifying a host as starburst-dominated from line ratios alone may miss a hidden AGN.
  • The inferred ionization cones place the AGN apex between blobs 117 and 3, giving a geometric constraint on where the accreting black hole sits in galaxy C.
  • The near-solar oxygen and factor-of-ten nitrogen spread across blobs indicate sub-kpc abundance variations that a merger system can imprint and that line-ratio modeling can recover.
  • Radio detections and upper limits in the field have different physical origins (thermal bremsstrahlung versus dust reradiation), so they cannot be combined into a single synchrotron spectrum.
  • Re-fitting other short GRB hosts with AGN-dominated models places their N/O abundances on the AGN trend, which will become testable when more hosts at z > 1 are observed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test not performed in the paper would be to re-observe blobs 3, 4, 98, 113, and 117 with a setup that includes the [OII] 3727+ doublet; if those lines are strong rather than weak, the AGN-dominated fits would be challenged.
  • If the hidden AGN is real and common in short GRB hosts, the host environment may not be a passive old stellar population but an actively evolving merger, which would affect estimates of the delay time between binary formation and merger.
  • The same modeling machinery could be applied to other gravitational-wave counterparts, not only NGC4993, to check whether AGN-like line ratios correlate with the presence of a compact binary merger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents photoionization plus shock models (using the suma code) of the emission-line ratios and the continuum SED of the SGRB100628A host galaxy complex, following the observations of Nicuesa Guelbenzu et al. (2015). The author shows that both black-body (starburst, SB) and power-law (AGN) photoionization models reproduce the observed line ratios in the galaxy C blobs, and then proposes a criterion based on the Hβ flux calculated at the nebula to decide which source dominates in each blob. On this basis the paper argues that an AGN and a starburst coexist in galaxy C: blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117 are AGN-dominated, blobs 1 and 2 lie in the ISM outside the inferred photoionization cones, and blob 98 in the tidal tail is SB-dominated with a comparable AGN contribution. The paper also fits the SED of galaxy D with a 3000 K black body, interprets the radio data inside the XRT circle as thermal bremsstrahlung plus dust reradiation, applies AGN-dominated models to several other SGRB hosts, and updates the N/O versus redshift diagram. The analysis is transparent about the fact that both model families fit the data, but the central claim of AGN/SB coexistence rests on an uncalibrated comparison of model Hβ fluxes and on an untested assumption about the unobserved [OII] lines in five blobs.

Significance. If the coexistence claim is correct, this would be an interesting addition to the growing evidence for AGN activity in some short GRB hosts, with implications for the progenitor environments and for merger-driven gas excitation. The paper has notable strengths: it models line ratios and continuum SEDs consistently, it cross-checks the line-ratio fits against an (admittedly incomplete) BPT diagram, it applies the same machinery to several comparison objects, and it clearly discloses the degeneracy between SB and AGN models. It also makes a concrete, falsifiable suggestion about the geometry of the photoionization cones. However, the significance is currently limited because the decisive classification step is based on an absolute model flux that is not tied to an observed observable, and because the key unobserved [OII] lines are assumed rather than measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, Table 1] The criterion used to assign AGN versus SB dominance is the comparison of the Hβ flux calculated at the nebula (Table 1, last column) between the two model families. This absolute flux is not normalized to the observed Hβ flux at Earth (Table 1, column 11); it depends on the assumed cloud thickness D, preshock density n0, and on the unstated distance r of the emitting cloud from the ionizing source through the 1/r^2 dilution. The same observed line ratios can therefore be reproduced by either model with an arbitrary rescaling of F, T*, or D. Before the classification of blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117 as AGN-dominated can be accepted, the author must either calibrate the model Hβ fluxes to the observed values or demonstrate that the relative ranking of the two models is invariant under the unknown normalization. As it stands, the central claim rests on a possibly arbitrary normalization rather than on a physical diagnostic.
  2. [3.1, paragraph on [OII] lines] For blobs 3, 4, 98, 113, and 117 the [OII] 3727+ lines were not observed because the GG 435 filter excludes wavelengths below 4400 Å. The paper explicitly considers two cases, but only the 'very weak [OII]' case is modeled; the alternative case of homogeneous [OII] comparable to blobs 1 and 2 is dismissed qualitatively. This assumption is load-bearing because [OII]/Hβ and [OIII]/Hβ jointly constrain the ionization parameter U and the effective temperature T* in the SB models, and the inferred AGN dominance is derived from the fits that assume weak [OII]. The degeneracy should be quantified by modeling the blobs with the high-[OII] assumption and showing how the AGN/SB classification and the derived abundances change.
  3. [3.2.1, radio SED inside the XRT circle] The interpretation that the 5.5 GHz detection is thermal bremsstrahlung from blob 98 while the 9.0 GHz upper limit is dust reradiation is based on only two data points (one detection and one upper limit) plus WISE upper limits. With two points, the decomposition into two different continuum components (bremsstrahlung and dust) is not unique: a single synchrotron or free-free component with a suitable spectral slope could also connect the two frequencies. The claim that the two emissions 'have different origins' needs a quantitative demonstration, for instance by showing that a single-component model fails the fit within the quoted uncertainties, or by marginalizing over plausible spectral indices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The symbol for the Balmer line is written inconsistently as 'Hβ' in most places but 'Hb' in several paragraphs; please unify to 'Hβ' throughout, including the abstract and figure axis labels.
  2. [References] Several references are incomplete: Ferland (2016) is cited as an arXiv preprint only, and Ellison et al. (2019) is cited as arXiv:1905.08830 without a journal reference; please update these with the published versions or add the arXiv identifiers in a consistent format.
  3. [Figure 1] The top panel of Figure 1 is a hand-drawn sketch rather than the original image; the blob labels (94, 136) appear in the text but are not all identified in the sketch, and the meaning of the pink and black symbols should be stated more explicitly in the caption.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The paper states that the observed line fluxes from NG15 do not include errors and that the model fits are within 4 percent, but the BPT diagram shown in Figure 3 is said to be uncertain because error bars are missing. Please state explicitly in the text which uncertainties (or upper limits) were adopted for the [NII] upper limits in blobs 2, 113, and 117, and how the 4 percent precision was estimated in the absence of observational errors.
  5. [Introduction and references] There are minor typographical issues, including 'Kouvelioutou' (should be 'Kouveliotou') and 'postigo at al' in the Figure 5 caption; these should be corrected in a final proof.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed AGN/SB coexistence reduces to an internal model comparison: both model families fit the same line ratios, dominance is assigned by comparing uncalibrated nebular Hβ fluxes, and the AGN classification of four blobs depends on the assumed, unobserved weakness of their [OII] lines.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, 'Galaxy C. Line ratios' (model selection paragraph, Tables 1 and 2)]
    "In order to determine whether the SB or the AGN dominates in each blob, we suggest a different criterion. We have selected the dominant photoionization source (a SB or an AGN) in each blob by comparing the Hβ flux calculated by a SB dominated model to Hβ calculated by an AGN (Table 1). We have found by the detailed modelling method that the AGN prevails in blobs 3, 4, 113 and 117 with a maximum Hβ flux in blob 117."

    The paper states that 'the data are well reproduced adopting both black-body and power-law dominated models,' so both model families fit the same observed line ratios. The AGN/SB classification is then made by comparing the absolute Hβ flux calculated at the nebula by each model and taking the larger value. That nebular flux is not an observable: it depends on assumed cloud thickness, preshock density, covering factor, and distance from the source, and the observed Hβ flux at Earth is not used to normalize the two models. Therefore the conclusion that 'the AGN prevails in blobs 3, 4, 113 and 117' is, by construction, the statement that the AGN model outputs a larger Hβ at the nebula; the classification reduces to the chosen comparison criterion rather than to any measured diagnostic.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, 'Galaxy C. Line ratios' (discussion of missing [OII] lines and model constraint)]
    "As a second choice we assume that the [OII] line fluxes were very low and the lines were blended with the noise ... The [OII] line weakness is used to constrain the models and we can proceed to model the line ratios. ... This procedure is valid only if the [OII] lines were missing in the spectra because very weak."

    The [OII] lines were not observed in blobs 3, 4, 98, 113, and 117 because the GG 435 filter cut off wavelengths below 4400 Å. The paper explicitly assumes these lines were very weak and uses that assumed weakness to constrain the models for those blobs. Those same fitted models are then compared by their Hβ fluxes to label blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117 as AGN-dominated and blob 98 as mixed. If the alternative stated by the paper—[OII] fluxes of the same order as in blobs 1 and 2—were true, the physical conditions, the models, and hence the AGN assignments would change. The coexistence claim therefore rests on an assumed input that is then reported, in the abstract and conclusions, as a result of the modelling.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that an AGN and a starburst coexist in galaxy C, with AGN photoionization dominating blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117—is not supported by an independent diagnostic. Table 1 shows that both black-body (SB) and power-law (AGN) models reproduce the observed line ratios, and the paper states this explicitly. The subsequent dominance assignment is made by comparing the Hβ flux calculated at the nebula by the two model families and choosing the larger value. This nebular flux depends on unmeasured model parameters (cloud thickness, preshock density, covering factor, distance from the source) and is not calibrated to the observed Hβ flux at Earth, so the assignment is equivalent to the selection rule itself. Additionally, for the four blobs classified as AGN-dominated, the models are constrained by the assumption that their unobserved [OII] lines were very weak; the paper acknowledges that the alternative homogeneous-[OII] case would change the physical conditions. The BPT diagram provides an external check, but the paper itself calls the 113/117 placement 'very uncertain' and notes the missing error bars, while blob 4 is the only clear AGN-domain point. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain here: the Contini prior papers supply grids and comparisons, but the reduction is internal to the present fitting procedure. Because the coexistence claim reduces partly to an assumed input and partly to an uncalibrated model-output comparison, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on a large number of fitted parameters and a proprietary modeling code. The central claim of AGN/SB coexistence is not uniquely determined by the data and depends on assumptions about unmeasured line fluxes. The free parameters are fitted per blob, and the physical interpretation (AGN cones, blob classification) follows from those fits.

free parameters (12)
  • Shock velocity (Vs) per blob = SB: 120,90,100,100,300,100,100 km/s; AGN: 120,110,300,200,300,300,300 km/s
    Fitted for each blob in Table 2 to reproduce line ratios.
  • Preshock density (n0) per blob = SB: 70,70,100,100,500,100,100 cm-3; AGN: 70,60,300,400,300,300,300 cm-3
    Fitted for each blob in Table 2.
  • Cloud geometrical thickness (D) per blob = SB: 0.08,0.014,15,9,1.3,15,15 (10^18 cm); AGN: 0.025,0.035,2.9,5.0,4.2,2.2,5.0
    Fitted cloud sizes in Table 2.
  • SB effective temperature (T*) for blobs (SB models) = 8.8,7.2,6.0,6.9,10.0,6.8,6.4 (10^4 K)
    Fitted for SB-dominated models.
  • Ionization parameter U for SB models = 0.0033,0.0043,0.1,0.1,10,0.1,0.1
    Fitted per blob.
  • AGN photoionizing flux F for AGN models = 0.037,0.042,100,10,96,100,100 (10^10 photons cm^-2 s^-1 eV^-1)
    Fitted per blob for power-law models.
  • N/H abundance (12+log(N/H)) per blob = SB: 7.6,7.7,8.0,8.3,7.3,7.78,7.0; AGN: 7.7,7.7,7.7,7.9,7.0,7.48,7.7
    Adjusted per blob to match [NII] and other line ratios.
  • S/H and Ne/H abundances = S/H varied per blob; Ne/H lower than solar in blob 98
    Adjusted to reproduce specific observed lines.
  • Dust-to-gas ratio (d/g) = 10^-14 by number; about 4.1e-4 by mass for silicates
    Chosen to match WISE upper limits; constrained to <0.0004 by mass.
  • Dust grain radius (a_gr) = 0.1-1.0 micron
    Assumed based on sputtering arguments.
  • Old stellar population blackbody temperature for galaxy D = 3000 K
    Fitted to g'r'i'z' JHK photometry.
  • Old stellar population blackbody temperatures for SGRB150101B and NGC4993 = 3000 K and 4500 K
    Fitted to SEDs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SUMA code correctly computes photoionization and shock structure
    The paper relies on this code for all line and continuum fluxes; no independent verification of the code is provided.
  • domain assumption Blackbody spectrum approximates the ionizing radiation from a starburst
    Stated in Section 2.1 as a limitation but essential for SB models.
  • domain assumption Power-law spectrum with alpha_UV=-1.5, alpha_X=-0.7 represents AGN radiation
    Standard assumption for AGN photoionization.
  • ad hoc to paper For blobs where [OII] was not observed, the lines are very weak
    Section 3.1; this is an assumption used to constrain models, without direct measurement.
  • domain assumption Dust-to-gas ratio is constrained by WISE upper limits to <0.0004 by mass
    Section 3.1; based on upper limits, not detections.
invented entities (1)
  • Unseen AGN in galaxy C
    purpose: To explain power-law photoionization of the gas in blobs 3, 4, 113, and 117 and the overall SED
    No direct detection; the AGN is inferred solely from model fits that are degenerate with starburst models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGN and starburst coexistence in the short GRB100628A host galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHLTBIQT

@misc{pith2026190805157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGN and starburst coexistence in the short GRB100628A host galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHLTBIQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05157}
}
read the original abstract

We have modelled the line ratios and the continuum spectral energy distribution (SED) of the short gamma-ray burst GRB100628A host galaxy complex. The results suggest that an active galactic nucleus (AGN) and a star-burst (SB) coexist in Nicuesa Guelbenzu et al.'s 'galaxy C'. The AGN spectrum is explained by a relatively strong flux. Two of the observed regions (blobs) are located in the ISM, outside the AGN photoionization cones. The strongest Hb line flux calculated by a SB dominated model was found in the tidal tail of galaxy C, while the strongest Hb line flux calculated by an AGN dominated model was found in the galaxy C bulk. O/H element abundances are near solar everywhere, while N/H spans a factor of ~10. The radio data have different origins, thermal bremsstrahlung and reprocessed radiation by dust. The infrared-optical photometric data measured from Nicuesa Guelbenzu et al.'s 'galaxy D', located outside the X-ray telescope (XRT) error circle, are reproduced by a black-body flux at 3000 K. This flux may represent the radiation of the underlying old star population observed throughout the SED in the infrared. AGNs in other SGRB hosts are investigated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: sketch of the slit positions and widths and of positions with strong emission lines (blobs) overlaid onto Gemini i-band image adapted from NG15, fig. 2. Galaxy C is roughly indicated by the white line encircled ellipse. Objects shown in pink are either foreground stars (A, B1) or galaxies (D, G, H, I). Object K could be the interacting partner of galaxy C. The large black circle represents the 90 percent X-ray … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-checking calculation precision of the calculated versus the observed line ratios: [OIII]/Hβ (top), [OII]/Hβ (mid￾dle), [NII]/Hβ (bottom). Squares: SB models; circles: AGN mod￾els. Black: NG15 data; red: Perley et al (2012) data; blue: data from de Ugarte Postigo et al (2014), Cucchiara et al (2013), Soder￾berg et al (2006); green: data from the the Berger (2009) sample (Sect. 4). agrams are generally used to s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of data with BPT diagram. Solid line: solar N/H; dot-dashed line: N/H= 1/3 solar; dashed line: N/H= 1/10 solar. Black stars: NG15; red squares: Perley et al (2012); blue triangles: de Ugarte Postigo et al (2014) and other SGRB hosts; green circles: Berger (2009) blobs 1, 3, 4 and 98. They are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: fit of the SGRB100628A SED (data are described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of N/O throughout the redshift. SB models for SGRB hosts- represented by filled green symbols￾were calculated by Contini (2018a); large squares: SGRB100206A host at different locations (Perley et al 2012); large triangles: SGRB host sample at different z (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1981, PASP, 93, 5

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

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    et al 2005, Space Sci

    Barthelmy, S.D. et al 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    et al 2012, ApJ, 754, 98

    Berg, D.A. et al 2012, ApJ, 754, 98

    2012

  4. [4]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 121

    Berger, E. 2013, ApJ, 765, 121

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 1946

    Berger, E. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1946

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 231

    Berger, E. 2009, ApJ, 690, 231

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Berger, E. et al. 2005, Nature, 438, 988

    work page 2005

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bloom, J.S. et al. 2006 ApJ,638, 354

    2006

  2. [10]

    1983, ApJ, 273, 489

    Cohen, R.D. 1983, ApJ, 273, 489

    1983

  3. [11]

    2014, A&A, 564, 19

    Contini, M. 2014, A&A, 564, 19

    2014

  4. [12]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 1205

    Contini, M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1205

    2012

  5. [13]

    1997, A&A, 323, 71

    Contini, M. 1997, A&A, 323, 71

    1997

  6. [14]

    2002, ApJ, 572, 124

    Contini, M., Radovich, M., Rafanelli, P., Richter, G.M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 124

    2002

  7. [15]

    1972, ApJ, 178, 159

    Cox, D..P. 1972, ApJ, 178, 159

    1972

  8. [16]

    et al 2013, ApJ, 777, 94 de Ugarte Postigo, A

    Cucchiara, A. et al 2013, ApJ, 777, 94 de Ugarte Postigo, A. et al. 2014, A&A, 563, 62

    2013

  9. [17]

    Dopita, M.M. et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 12

    2015

  10. [18]

    & Lee, M.M

    Draine, B.T. & Lee, M.M. 1994, ApJ, 285, 89

    1994

  11. [19]

    & Salpeter, E.E

    Draine, B.T. & Salpeter, E.E. 1979, ApJ, 231, 438

    1979

  12. [20]

    & Cherchneff, I

    Dwek, E. & Cherchneff, I. 2011 ApJ, 727, 63

    2011

  13. [21]

    et al arXiv:1905.08830

    Ellison, S.L. et al arXiv:1905.08830

    1905 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2016 arXiv160308902, The Lexington Bench- marks for Numerical Simulations of Nebulae

    Ferland, G. 2016 arXiv160308902, The Lexington Bench- marks for Numerical Simulations of Nebulae

    2016

  15. [23]

    Fong, W. et al. 2013, ApJ 769, 56

    2013

  16. [24]

    , Berger, E

    Fong, W. , Berger, E. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18

    2013

  17. [25]

    2010, 708, 9

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Fox, D.B. 2010, 708, 9

    2010

  18. [26]

    Gehrels, N., White, N., Barthelmy, S. et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 851

    2005

  19. [27]

    1998 SSRv, 85, 161

    Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J. 1998 SSRv, 85, 161

    1998

  20. [28]

    H., Hammer, F., Liang, Y

    Han, X. H., Hammer, F., Liang, Y. C., Flores, H., Rodrigues, M., Hou, J. L., Wei, J. Y. 2010, A&A, 514, 24

    2010

  21. [29]

    V., Sargent, W.L.W

    Ho, L., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W.L.W. 1993, ApJ, 417, 63

    1993

  22. [30]

    2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    2001

  23. [31]

    1993, ApJL, 413, L101

    Kouvelioutou, C et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101

    1993

  24. [32]

    1994, ApJ, 435, 171 Kr¨ uhler, T

    Kraemer, S.B., Wu, C.-C., Crenshaw, D.M.,Harrington, J.P. 1994, ApJ, 435, 171 Kr¨ uhler, T. et al. 2015 A&A, 581, 125

    1994

  25. [33]

    2010, GCN Rep

    Sakamoto, T. 2010, GCN Rep. 290, 1

    2010

  26. [34]

    Levan, A.J. et al. 2017 ApJL, 848, L31

    2017

  27. [35]

    Marino, R.A. et al. 2013, A&A, 559, 114

    2013

  28. [36]

    1996, ApJ, 467, 197 Nicuesa Guelbenzu A

    Mulchaey, J.S., Wilson, A.S., Tsvetanov, Z. 1996, ApJ, 467, 197 Nicuesa Guelbenzu A. et al 2015, A&A, 583, A88, NG15

    1996

  29. [37]

    Niino, Y. et al. 2016 Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 69, 27

    2016

  30. [38]

    1974, in Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae, W.H Freeman and Co., San Francisco

    Osterbrock, D.E. 1974, in Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae, W.H Freeman and Co., San Francisco

    1974

  31. [39]

    Pan, Y.-C. et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L30 c© 2009 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1– ?? 14 M. Contini

    2017

  32. [40]

    Perley, D.A. et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 122

    2012

  33. [41]

    & Rieke, G.H

    Rigby, J.R. & Rieke, G.H. 2004, ApJ, 606, 237

    2004

  34. [42]

    2009, ApJ, 691, 182

    Savaglio, S., Glazerbrook, K., Le Borgne, D. 2009, ApJ, 691, 182

    2009

  35. [43]

    R., Donley, J.L., Antonucci, R.R.J., Hutchings , J.B., Kinney, A.L., Pringle, J.E., 2003, ApJ, 597, 768

    Schmitt, H. R., Donley, J.L., Antonucci, R.R.J., Hutchings , J.B., Kinney, A.L., Pringle, J.E., 2003, ApJ, 597, 768

    2003

  36. [44]

    Selsing, J. et al. 2018, A&A, 616, 48

    2018

  37. [45]

    Soderberg, A.M. et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 261

    2006

  38. [46]

    2010, GRB coordinates Network, 10907,1

    Starling, R.L.C., Beardmore, A.P., Immler, S. 2010, GRB coordinates Network, 10907,1

    2010

  39. [47]

    2015, GCN, 18289, Q 2015 van den Bergh, S., Marshner, A.P., Terzian, Y 1973 ApJS, 26, 19

    Troja, E., Sakamoto, T., Lien, A., Cenko, S.B., Gehrels, N. 2015, GCN, 18289, Q 2015 van den Bergh, S., Marshner, A.P., Terzian, Y 1973 ApJS, 26, 19

    2015

  40. [48]

    et al 2017, ApJ,851, L21

    Villar, V.A. et al 2017, ApJ,851, L21

    2017

  41. [49]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 46

    Wu, Q., Feng, J., Fan, X. 2018, ApJ, 855, 46

    2018

  42. [50]

    2016, ApJL, 824, L17 c© 2009 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1– ??

    Xie, C., Fang, T., Wang, J., Liu, T., Jiang, X. 2016, ApJL, 824, L17 c© 2009 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1– ??

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.