Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The interplay between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ram-pressure stripping: spatially resolved gas-phase abundances of stripped and undisturbed galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AGN host galaxies are more metal-rich at every radius than star-forming galaxies, with a nuclear excess 1.8–2.3 times the disk excess, pointing to AGN-driven metal pollution.

desk verdict Read it for the new consistent calibrator set and the careful RPS-vs-field comparison; the case for AGN nuclear metal pollution is not yet made because the claimed offset sits within the calibration uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18972 v1 pith:KE223DXO submitted 2025-04-26 astro-ph.GA

Giorgia Peluso , Benedetta Vulcani , Mario Radovich , Alessia Moretti , Bianca M. Poggianti , Peter Watson , Ayan Acharyya , Augusto E. Lassen
show 6 more authors
Marco Gullieuszik Jacopo Fritz Alessandro Ignesti Neven Tomicic Ivan Delvecchio Amir H. Khoram
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleigas-phasemetallicityoxygenabundancegradientsram-pressurestrippingstrong-linecalibratorsphotoionizationmodelsintegral-fieldspectroscopynuclearmetalenrichment
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

Using spatially resolved spectra of nearby galaxies, this paper compares the gas-phase oxygen abundance of galaxies whose centers host an active galactic nucleus (AGN) with that of galaxies forming stars. It finds that AGN hosts are more metal-rich at every radius, and that the excess over star-forming galaxies is between 1.8 and 2.3 times larger in the nuclear region ($r < 0.5\,R_e$) than in the disk ($r \sim 1.25\,R_e$). The authors take this as evidence that AGN activity itself pollutes the nuclear gas, rather than the enrichment being a by-product of the host galaxy's star-formation history. The same data show no significant difference between ram-pressure-stripped AGN hosts in clusters and undisturbed field AGN hosts within 1.5 effective radii, indicating that stripping does not alter the metal content of AGN hosts at these radii.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three new strong-line metallicity calibrators, one each for star-forming, AGN-ionized, and composite regions. They express $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ as a least-squares fit in the observed line ratios $\log([\mathrm{N\,II}]/[\mathrm{S\,II}])$ and $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/[\mathrm{S\,II}])$, with coefficients calibrated against Cloudy photoionization models fitted to the data through the Bayesian code NebulaBayes. Because the same model set and inference code are used for all three ionizing regimes, the calibrators put AGN and star-forming abundances on a common scale; this is what makes the nuclear-vs-disk enhancement ratio a physical comparison rather than a cross-calibration artifact. The paper also uses the BPT diagnostic diagram, which classifies the ionizing source from optical line ratios, to assign spaxels to the three regimes.

What would settle it

Measure direct electron-temperature abundances from auroral lines such as [O III] $\lambda$4363 in the $r < 0.5\,R_e$ annuli of a few dozen AGN hosts and mass-matched star-forming galaxies; if the AGN–SF nuclear offset that produces the 1.8–2.3 factor disappears or reverses on this independent scale, the AGN metal-pollution claim is falsified rather than calibration-driven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that active galactic nuclei change the metal budget of their host galaxies locally: AGN hosts show higher gas-phase oxygen abundances than star-forming galaxies at any given radius, and the steepness of the radial gradient in the nuclear annulus $r < 0.5\,R_e$ is larger in AGN hosts. Quantitatively, the AGN–SF abundance enhancement in the nucleus is between 1.8 and 2.3 times the enhancement measured in the disk at $r \sim 1.25\,R_e$, in all stellar-mass bins considered. The authors interpret this as nuclear metal pollution caused by the AGN. The secondary claim is that ram-pressure stripping plays no measurable role in this budget: the metallicity distributions of 10 stripped and 52 undisturbed AGN hosts are statistically indistinguishable within $r < 1.5\,R_e$, with only two stripped hosts showing lower abundances at every radius.

Load-bearing premise

The star-forming and AGN calibrators define a common, mutually consistent absolute metallicity scale, so the measured AGN–SF abundance offset reflects real enrichment rather than a difference in how each calibrator was built.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AGN activity enriches nuclear gas, metallicity gradients can be used as a fossil tracer of past AGN feedback in galaxies where the AGN is no longer bright.
  • The new calibrators let observers measure star-forming, AGN, and composite-region abundances without switching between inconsistent literature calibrators, so AGN–SF metallicity comparisons become less dependent on method.
  • The ram-pressure result means that, at the stripping stages sampled, environment does not alter the metal content inside 1.5 effective radii, so AGN metallicity studies need not separate stripped from undisturbed hosts at these radii.
  • The lack of correlation between gradient slope and nuclear [O III] luminosity or stellar mass implies that the enrichment mechanism does not simply scale with AGN brightness or host mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the nuclear excess is real, the most economical physical explanations are dust destruction near the black hole or a top-heavy stellar initial mass function; these make different predictions for dust-to-gas ratio and stellar abundance patterns that the current data do not test.
  • The reported factor 1.8–2.3 is tied to the new AGN calibrator, which reads 0.1–0.4 dex higher than literature AGN calibrators at high metallicity; recomputing the ratio on a literature scale would show how much of the enhancement is absolute-scale dependent.
  • A harder AGN ionizing continuum than the assumed power-law slope would lower derived AGN abundances by up to 0.23 dex; if the true continuum sits at the hard end, the nuclear enhancement could shrink below significance, so fitting the same galaxies with harder continuum models is a natural next step.
  • The two stripped outliers with low abundances at all radii may be galaxies observed after the ram-pressure peak, where simulations predict both star formation and black-hole accretion to decline; targeted follow-up could test whether their metal-poor gas is accreted rather than stripped.
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 measures spatially resolved gas-phase oxygen abundances in 10 ram-pressure-stripped AGN hosts from GASP and 52 field AGN hosts from MaNGA DR15, together with SF control samples, using new strong-line calibrators derived from Cloudy photoionization models and NebulaBayes. The authors report that the metallicity distributions of stripped and field AGN are statistically indistinguishable within 1.5 Re, with only two stripped AGNs (JO206 and JO171) showing lower abundances. They further report that AGN hosts are more metal-enriched than SF galaxies at all radii, with a nuclear (r<0.5 Re) enhancement larger than the disk enhancement at r~1.25 Re by a factor R~1.8-2.3, which they interpret as evidence that AGN activity enriches the nuclear gas.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides some of the first spatially resolved evidence that AGN activity is associated with a nuclear metal excess relative to SF galaxies, and it offers a useful null result on the role of ram-pressure stripping in shaping AGN-host metallicity. The construction of SF, AGN, and composite calibrators within the same Cloudy/NebulaBayes framework is a methodological strength, as are the explicit comparisons with the DN22, SB98, C20, and T18 calibrators. The main limitation is that the headline R ratio has no quoted uncertainty and is derived from two abundance calibrators whose mutual consistency is not fully established; this needs to be addressed before the physical interpretation can be considered secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.3, Fig. 12, Eq. (3)] The authors show that the P24 AGN calibrator (Eq. 3) lies systematically above the SB98 and C20 AGN calibrators by up to ~0.4 dex, with the offset increasing with metallicity. Because the central R statistic in Section 4.2 is a difference between AGN abundances from Eq. (3) and SF abundances from Eq. (2), and because AGN nuclear spaxels are the most metal-rich spaxels, a metallicity-dependent offset in Eq. (3) will preferentially inflate the numerator of R. The discussion in Section 5.3 demonstrates the discrepancy but does not propagate it into R or re-derive R using SB98 or C20 for the AGN spaxels. Please quantify the calibration-induced systematic on the nuclear enhancement, or show explicitly that the enhancement survives when literature AGN calibrators are used.
  2. [4.2, definition of R] The quantity R (reported as 1.77-2.24) is quoted without any uncertainty or significance test. The medians entering the numerator and denominator have substantial scatter (the 25th-75th percentiles shown in Fig. 6 are ~0.1 dex or larger), and the sample sizes are modest: 10 AGN-RPS, 52 AGN-FS, and 83 SF galaxies. A bootstrap or permutation test should be used to establish whether R is significantly greater than 1 and to attach confidence intervals to the quoted factors. Similarly, the statement that AGN hosts are more metal-enriched than SF galaxies 'at any given radius' is not accompanied by a statistical test at individual radii.
  3. [3.2, exclusion of JW100] JW100 is discarded from the AGN-RPS sample because its residual from the new calibrator plane is mu>0.1 dex. This is a post-hoc exclusion based on the same calibrator that is later used to measure all abundances, and the AGN-RPS sample contains only 11 objects. The exclusion therefore has large leverage on the RPS-versus-field comparison presented in Section 4.1. Please show the main RPS/field results with JW100 included, and if possible justify the exclusion using an independent diagnostic rather than the calibrator residual.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The definition of O3N2 should be log{([O iii]/Hβ)/([N ii]/Hα)}; the current notation, with the multiplicative expression, is ambiguous.
  2. [4.1] The text mixes Kendall tau and Spearman coefficients in the same paragraph, with symbols kτAGN and spAGN; please use consistent notation.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that 'the lines show the probability density distribution evaluated using KDE', but the figure panels show scatter points; please clarify what the lines represent and where they appear.
  4. [3.2] The sentence 'the main assumptions on the models are the stellar age ... the gas density ... and a slope of the AGN continuum alpha=-2.0' is a footnote; the information would be more visible if placed in the main text.
  5. [Conclusion (ii)] The conclusion says 'see Figure 4' for the nuclear-to-disk enhancement factor, but the R values are shown in Figure 6; please correct the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the P24 calibrators are model-based mappings validated against independent benchmarks, and the AGN-vs-SF metallicity comparison is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's abundance scale is built by fitting Eqs. 2-4 to the 12+log(O/H) values returned by Cloudy/NebulaBayes for SF, AGN, and composite models, using observed [N II]/[S II] and [O III]/[S II] ratios as inputs. This is a calibration step, not a circular prediction: the calibrators are not fitted to the final galaxy metallicity medians that are later compared. The central claim (AGN hosts more metal-rich, with nuclear enhancement factor 1.8-2.3) is a comparison of calibrated median radial profiles; the R ratio is a derived statistic from observed line-ratio maps and the fitted calibrators, and no equation defining R is also used as an input to the fit in a way that would force the result. The paper explicitly tests the calibration against independent literature calibrators (SB98, C20, PC09, DN22) and against MappingsV/T18 models (Fig. 13), finding offsets up to ~0.4 dex for AGN calibrators and a 0.23 dex shift for a harder AGN continuum. These are acknowledged model-dependence and robustness limitations, not definitional equivalences. The only self-citations (P23 for model construction) are not load-bearing because the model assumptions (t*=4 Myr, nH=100 cm^-3, alpha=-2.0, NebulaBayes priors) are restated in Sec. 3.1 and are standard and externally checkable. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement of galaxy metallicity depends on assumed model parameters and calibrations, but no new physical entity is introduced. The claimed AGN enrichment rests on the relative zero-points of the SF and AGN calibrators, which are fitted quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • Calibrator coefficients (Eqs 2 to 4) = SF: 8.78, 0.97, -0.11, -0.39, 0.09, 0.02; AGN: 8.85, 1.06, -0.04; Comp: 8.83, 1.07, 0.10
    Least-squares fits to the relation between observed line ratios and NebulaBayes metallicity on the authors' Cloudy model grid; these set the absolute abundance scale for all science results.
  • Composite-region AGN fraction fAGN = 0.2
    Adopted because 85% of Composite spaxels in the models have this value; it fixes the Comp calibrator (Eq 4) and affects abundances assigned to Composite spaxels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cloudy v17.02 photoionization models with nH=100 cm^-3, stellar age 4 Myr, and AGN power-law slope alpha=-2.0 accurately describe the emission from HII and NLR gas.
    Invoked in Sec 3.1 to generate the model grid from which the calibrators and NebulaBayes posteriors are derived.
  • domain assumption The [NII]-BPT diagram correctly separates SF, Composite, and AGN ionized spaxels, so the appropriate calibrator can be applied to each spaxel.
    Used throughout; the classification drives which equation is used, and misclassification would bias abundance profiles.
  • domain assumption The Balmer decrement intrinsic ratio I(Halpha)/I(Hbeta)=2.86 is adopted for extinction correction.
    Sec 2.1; assumes standard Case B recombination at ne=100 cm^-3 and Te=10^4 K.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses from GASP (SINOPSIS) and MaNGA (Pace catalog) are on a consistent scale.
    Sec 2.2; checked in P23, needed for the mass-matched AGN-SF comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The interplay between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ram-pressure stripping: spatially resolved gas-phase abundances of stripped and undisturbed galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE223DXO

@misc{pith2026250418972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The interplay between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ram-pressure stripping: spatially resolved gas-phase abundances of stripped and undisturbed galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE223DXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18972}
}
read the original abstract

The gas-phase oxygen abundance of the circumnuclear regions around supermassive black holes (SMBH) has been claimed to be affected by the presence of an Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN). However, there is currently no consensus on the mechanism driving this effect. In this work, we explore whether the interplay between AGN activity and the Ram Pressure Stripping (RPS) can influence the metallicity distributions of nearby (z < 0.07) galaxies. To this aim, we measure the spatially resolved gas-phase oxygen abundances of 10 stripped AGN hosts from the GASP survey, as well as 52 AGN hosts found in the field, which are undisturbed by the effects of ram pressure, drawn from the MaNGA DR15. We find that the metal distributions in these two samples do not differ significantly. Only 2 out of the 10 RP-stripped AGNs present lower oxygen abundances at any given radius than the rest of the AGN sample. Overall, this result highlights that the AGN-RPS interplay does not play a significant role in shaping the metallicity distributions of stripped galaxies within 1.5 times the galaxy's effective radius (r < 1.5 Re). However, larger samples are required to draw more definitive conclusions. By including a control sample of SF galaxies, we observe that the AGN hosts are more metal-enriched than SF galaxies at any given radius. More than that, the steepness of the gradients in the nuclear regions (r < 0.5 Re) is greater in AGN hosts than in SF galaxies. These results favor the hypothesis that the AGN activity is causing metal pollution in the galaxy's nuclear regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surfaces of 12 + log O/H versus x ≡ log([N ii]/[S ii]) and y ≡ log[O iii]/[S ii], as described by the Sf calibrator or equation 2 (top panels), Comp calibrator or equation 4 (center panels) and Agn calibrator or equation 3 (bottom panels), rotated of an angle of 0 ◦ (right), 90◦ (center) and 45◦ (left). The surfaces are obtained by fitting with a least-squared method the observed [O iii]/[S ii] and [N ii]/[S ii] lin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 12 + log O/H computed by Nebulabayes (12 + log O/H Neb) versus the difference d between 12 + log O/H Neb and the metallicities computed through the (from left to right) SF, COMP (AGN+SF), and AGN calibrators (12 + log O/H Cal). These distributions have been smoothed by a 2D Gaussian Kernel Density Estimate (KDE), where the black contours outline density curves and darker shades of pink indicate higher densities. Yel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. From top to bottom: metallicity maps (left panels) and metallicity gradients (right panels) of the cluster-AGN host galaxy (JO49, log M∗= 10.68, z = 0.0451), cluster-SF galaxy (JO93, log M∗ = 10.54, z = 0.037), field-AGN galaxy (’8311-6104’, log M∗ = 10.67, z = 0.027) and the field-SF galaxy (’8329-12701’, log M∗ = 10.99, z = 0.035). On the left, the black contours are overplotted on the metallicity map to divide SF… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram comparing each pair of metallicities obtained at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left Panel) Gradient’s slope (∆α) as a function of the nuclear metallicity. The legend shows the Kendall τ test’s coefficients revealing that the slopes seem to correlate with the nuclear metallicity only in the AGN-RPS,(kτAGN = -0.73). (Right Panel) Median oxygen abu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median metallicity among AGN host galaxies (dashed line) and SF galaxies (continuous line) as a function of the galactic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gradient’s slope (∆α) as a function of the disk metallicity of SF galaxies (stars) and AGN host galaxies (circles) with log M∗/M⊙ > 10.5, color-coded according to the nuclear metallicity. Black and red contours represent density curves computed by a KDE. In the legend,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Slopes of the metallicity gradients (∆α) of the AGN (pink points) and SF (gray stars) galaxies as a function of the luminosity of the [O iii] λ5007 line within an aperture with r ∼ 1 kpc (log L [O iii]λ5007r<1kpc) and the host galaxy stellar mass. Pink and gray contour…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left panel) Metallicity map of the AGN-host galaxy ‘8985-12703’ in MaNGA, which is a galaxy in common with the sample studied in Nascimento et al. (2022). The red circle is the MaNGA PSF, e.g. an aperture with diameter d ∼ 2.5 ′′. (Right panel) Metallicity gradient fo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Difference between the median oxygen abundance in￾side the MaNGA PSF (12 + log O/H PSF ∼ 2.5 ′′, e.g. red dot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Difference between 12 + log (O/H) inside the SF spax￾els of the SF-RPS and SF-FS galaxies computed with the P24 calibrator in Equation 2 (12 + log O/HS F,P24) and the P09 (top panel) and DN22 (bottom panel) calibrators, as a function of 12 + log O/H S F,P24. The media…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Difference between 12 + log O/HAGN,P24 and the val￾ues obtained giving in input to NebulaBayes the [O iii]/[S ii]and [N ii]/[S ii] ratios from MappingsV models (Thomas et al. 2018a) with a peak energy in the AGN accretion disk of log Epeak = - 1.25, -1.5, -1.75 and -2…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The MUSE view of ram pressure stripped galaxies in clusters: the GASP sample

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    89% of optically selected ram-pressure stripping candidates in 39 clusters are confirmed with MUSE integral-field spectroscopy, and a ring of [OI] emission is found at galaxy disk edges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

    2009

  4. [4]

    M., Smith, R., & Marasco, A

    Akerman, N., Tonnesen, S., Poggianti, B. M., Smith, R., & Marasco, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 18

    2023

  5. [5]

    H., Aller, & H., L

    Aller, L. H., Aller, & H., L. 1987, soap, 89

    1987

  6. [6]

    1979, A&A, 78, 200

    Alloin, D., Collin-Souffrin, S., Joly, M., & Vigroux, L. 1979, A&A, 78, 200

    1979

  7. [7]

    Almeida, C. R. & Ricci, C. 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    H., Comerón, S., Marconi, A., & Lehmer, B

    Amiri, A., Knapen, J. H., Comerón, S., Marconi, A., & Lehmer, B. D. 2024

    2024

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1687

    Armah, M., Rog´, R., Riffel, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1687

    2023

  2. [10]

    2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 568, A14

    Arribas, S., Colina, L., Bellocchi, E., Maiolino, R., & Villar-Martín, M. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 568, A14

    2014

  3. [11]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481

    2009

  4. [12]

    M., et al

    Bacchini, C., Mingozzi, M., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 24

    2023

  5. [13]

    2010, SPIE, 7735, 773508

    Bacon, R., M., A., L., A., et al. 2010, SPIE, 7735, 773508

    2010

  6. [14]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    1981

  7. [15]

    E., Hernquist, L., Barnes, J

    Barnes, J. E., Hernquist, L., Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

    1996

  8. [16]

    E., Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., Hernquist, L. E., Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, ApJL, 370, L65

    1991

  9. [17]

    2017 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 151

    Belfiore, F., Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2017 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 151

    2017

  10. [18]

    2017 b , MNRAS, 469, 151

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

    2017

  11. [19]

    2019 a , MNRAS, 487, 456

    Belfiore, F., Vincenzo, F., Maiolino, R., & Matteucci, F. 2019 a , MNRAS, 487, 456

    2019

  12. [20]

    B., Schaefer, A., et al

    Belfiore, F., Westfall, K. B., Schaefer, A., et al. 2019 b , AJ

    2019

  13. [21]

    B., Schaefer, A., et al

    Belfiore, F., Westfall, K. B., Schaefer, A., et al. 2019 c

    2019

  14. [22]

    F., de Jong, R

    Bell, E. F., de Jong, R. S., Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

    2001

  15. [23]

    1992, ApJS, 78, 61

    Belley, J., Roy, J.-R., Belley, J., & Roy, J.-R. 1992, ApJS, 78, 61

    1992

  16. [24]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 189

    Berentzen, I., Shlosman, I., Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Heller, C. 2007, ApJ, 666, 189

    2007

  17. [25]

    2015, A&A, 578, 28

    Berton, M., Foschini, L., Ciroi, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, 28

    2015

  18. [26]

    2019 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A118

    Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., Feruglio, C., et al. 2019 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A118

    2019

  19. [27]

    2019 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A118

    Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., Feruglio, C., et al. 2019 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A118

    2019

  20. [28]

    A., Kewley, L., Vogt, F

    Blanc, G. A., Kewley, L., Vogt, F. P. A., & Dopita, M. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 99

    2014

  21. [29]

    R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B

    Blanton, M. R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B. A., & Price-Whelan, A. 2011, Astronomical Journal, 142, 31

    2011

  22. [30]

    & Prantzos, N

    Boissier, S. & Prantzos, N. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 307, 857

    1999

  23. [31]

    2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 2022 30:1, 30, 1

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 2022 30:1, 30, 1

    2022

  24. [32]

    2015, IAUS, 311, 100

    Bundy, K., Bundy, & Kevin. 2015, IAUS, 311, 100

    2015

  25. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  26. [34]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  27. [35]

    P., Dors, O

    Carvalho, S. P., Dors, O. L., Cardaci, M. V., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5675

    2020

  28. [36]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G., Chabrier, & Gilles. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  29. [37]

    H., Grasha, K., Battisti, A

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    H., Sánchez-Gallego, J., et al

    Cherinka, B., Andrews, B. H., Sánchez-Gallego, J., et al. 2019, AJ

    2019

  31. [39]

    G., Combes, F., & Elmegreen, B

    Combes, F., Elmegreen, B. G., Combes, F., & Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, A&A, 271, 391

    1993

  32. [40]

    2017, A&A, 606, A83

    Consolandi, G., Gavazzi, G., Fossati, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A83

    2017

  33. [41]

    D., & Finlator, K

    Davé, R., Oppenheimer, B. D., & Finlator, K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 11

    2011

  34. [42]

    & Mandelker, N

    Dekel, A. & Mandelker, N. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2071

    2014

  35. [43]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 999

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 999

    2013

  36. [44]

    L., & Danese, L

    D'Odorico, V., Cristiani, S., Romano, D., Granato, G. L., & Danese, L. 2004, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 351, 976

    2004

  37. [45]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Heisler, C. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 224

    2000

  38. [46]

    A., Shastri, P., Davies, R., et al

    Dopita, M. A., Shastri, P., Davies, R., et al. 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    A., Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Nicholls, D. C., Kewley, L. J., & Vogt, F. P. A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 10

    2013

  40. [48]

    L., Cardaci, M

    Dors, O. L., Cardaci, M. V., & Krabbe, A. C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 726

    2017

  41. [49]

    L., Dors, & L., O

    Dors, O. L., Dors, & L., O. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 466

    2021

  42. [50]

    L., Freitas-Lemes, P., Amôres, E

    Dors, O. L., Freitas-Lemes, P., Amôres, E. B., et al. 2020 a , MNRAS, 492, 468

    2020

  43. [51]

    L., Maiolino, R., Cardaci, M

    Dors, O. L., Maiolino, R., Cardaci, M. V., et al. 2020 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3209

    2020

  44. [52]

    L., Teimoorinia, H., Rosario, D

    Ellison, S. L., Teimoorinia, H., Rosario, D. J., & Mendel, J. T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 458, L34

    2016

  45. [53]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385

    2017

  46. [54]

    C., Stasinska, G., Mateus, A., & Asari, N

    Fernandes, R. C., Stasinska, G., Mateus, A., & Asari, N. V. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 413, Issue 3, pp. 1687-1699., 413, 1687

    2010

  47. [55]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 608, A30

    Feruglio, C., Ferrara, A., Bischetti, M., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 608, A30

    2017

  48. [56]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L155

    Feruglio, C., Maiolino, R., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L155

    2010

  49. [57]

    Flury, S. R. & Moran, E. C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 2191

    2020

  50. [58]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 2028

    Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Boselli, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2028

    2016

  51. [59]

    2016, A&A, 587, 142

    Fotopoulou, S., Buchner, J., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, 142

    2016

  52. [60]

    M., et al

    Franchetto, A., Mingozzi, M., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 28

    2021

  53. [61]

    M., et al

    Franchetto, A., Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 106

    2020

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 132

    Fritz, J., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 132

    2017

  55. [63]

    2001, ApJL, 563, L23

    Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Mayer, L., et al. 2001, ApJL, 563, L23

    2001

  56. [64]

    1995, A&A, 304, 325

    Gavazzi, G., Contursi, A., Carrasco, L., et al. 1995, A&A, 304, 325

    1995

  57. [65]

    K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C

    Gibson, B. K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J. 2013, A&A, 554, A47

    2013

  58. [66]

    M., et al

    Giunchi, E., Gullieuszik, M., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 72

    2023

  59. [67]

    J., & van Dishoeck, E

    Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1984, A&A, 141, 10

    1984

  60. [68]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2570

    Grisoni, V., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2570

    2018

  61. [69]

    A., Heckman, T

    Groves, B. A., Heckman, T. M., & Kauffmann, G. 2006, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 371, 1559

    2006

  62. [70]

    M., et al

    Gullieuszik, M., Giunchi, E., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 945, Issue 1, id.54, <NUMPAGES>13</NUMPAGES> pp., 945, 54

    2023

  63. [71]

    M., McGee, S

    Gullieuszik, M., Poggianti, B. M., McGee, S. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 13

    2020

  64. [72]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332

    2006

  65. [73]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 507

    Haardt, F., Maraschi, L., Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507

    1993

  66. [74]

    M., Lehnert, M

    Heckman, T. M., Lehnert, M. D., Strickland, D. K., & Armus, L. 2000, ApJS, 129, 493

    2000

  67. [75]

    M., Cortese, L., Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G., & Davies, J

    Hughes, T. M., Cortese, L., Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G., & Davies, J. I. 2013, A&A, 550, 115

    2013

  68. [76]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 700, 1299

    2009

  69. [77]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

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

    2003

  70. [78]

    J., Rupke, D., Zahid, H

    Kewley, L. J., Rupke, D., Zahid, H. J., Geller, M. J., & Barton, E. J. 2010, ApJL, 721, L48

    2010

  71. [79]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A261

    Khoram, A., Poggianti, B., Moretti, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A261

    2024

  72. [80]

    Khoram, A. H. & Belfiore, F. 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.22407

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A140

    Kumari, N., Maiolino, R., Trussler, J., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A140

    2021

  74. [82]

    Lacerda, E. A. D., Sánchez, S. F., Fernandes, R. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3073

    2020

  75. [83]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

    2016

  76. [84]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 430

    Li, S.-L., Li, Z., Wisnioski, E., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 430

    2025

  77. [85]

    & Mannucci, F

    Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, De re metallica: the cosmic chemical evolution of galaxies

    2019

  78. [86]

    2008, A&A, 488, 463

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

    2008

  79. [87]

    2010, Mon

    Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., & Gnerucci, A. 2010, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 408, 2115

    2010

  80. [88]

    G., Ferland, G

    Mathews, W. G., Ferland, G. J., Mathews, W. G., & Ferland, G. J. 1987, ApJ, 323, 456

    1987

  81. [89]

    2013, IAUS, 290, 273

    Matsuoka, K., Nagao, T., Marconi, A., et al. 2013, IAUS, 290, 273

    2013

  82. [90]

    2020, A&A, 636, 42

    Mingozzi, M., Belfiore, F., Cresci, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, 42

    2020

  83. [91]

    I., et al

    Molla, M., Ferrini, F., Diaz, A. I., et al. 1996, ApJ, 466, 668

    1996

  84. [92]

    M., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Moretti, A., Poggianti, B. M., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4055

    2018

  85. [93]

    Nascimento, J. C. D., Dors, O. L., Storchi-Bergmann, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 807

    2022

  86. [94]

    & Sunyaev, R

    Nayakshin, S. & Sunyaev, R. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 364, L23

    2005

  87. [95]

    C., Sutherland, R

    Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R. S., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., & Groves, B. A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 4403

    2017

  88. [96]

    E., O'Donnell, & E., J

    O'Donnell, J. E., O'Donnell, & E., J. 1994, ApJ, 422, 158

    1994

  89. [97]

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

    2006

  90. [98]

    J., Tremonti, C., Chen, Y., et al

    Pace, Z. J., Tremonti, C., Chen, Y., et al. 2019 a , ApJ

    2019

  91. [99]

    J., Tremonti, C., Chen, Y., et al

    Pace, Z. J., Tremonti, C., Chen, Y., et al. 2019 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 83

    2019

  92. [100]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 147

    Peluso, G., Radovich, M., Moretti, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 147

    2023

  93. [101]

    M., et al

    Peluso, G., Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2022, ApJ

    2022

  94. [102]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, L59

    2004

  95. [103]

    G., Gibson, B

    Pilkington, K., Few, C. G., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 540, A56

    2012

  96. [104]

    J., et al

    Poetrodjojo, H., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5235

    2018

  97. [105]

    W., Pogge, & W., R

    Pogge, R. W., Pogge, & W., R. 1988, ApJ, 332, 702

    1988

  98. [106]

    M., Gullieuszik, M., Tonnesen, S., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Gullieuszik, M., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4466

    2019

  99. [107]

    M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 48

    2017

  100. [108]

    & Boissier, S

    Prantzos, N. & Boissier, S. 1999, MNRAS, 313, 338

    1999

  101. [109]

    X., Werk, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 169

    2017

  102. [110]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4289

    Pérez-Díaz, B., Masegosa, J., Márquez, I., & Pérez-Montero, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4289

    2021

  103. [111]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 2663

    Pérez-Montero, E. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2663

    2014

  104. [112]

    & Contini, T

    Pérez-Montero, E. & Contini, T. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 949

    2009

  105. [113]

    L., Vílchez, J

    Pérez-Montero, E., Dors, O. L., Vílchez, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2652

    2019

  106. [114]

    C., & Ángeles Pérez-Villegas

    Ramos-Martínez, M., Gómez, G. C., & Ángeles Pérez-Villegas. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3781

    2018

  107. [115]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L8

    Ricarte, A., Tremmel, M., Natarajan, P., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L8

    2020

  108. [116]

    V., Chies-Santos, A

    Roman-Oliveira, F. V., Chies-Santos, A. L., del Pino, B. R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 892

    2018

  109. [117]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 889

    2014

  110. [118]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 737, Issue 2, article id. 103, <NUMPAGES>13</NUMPAGES> pp. (2011)., 737, 103

    2011

  111. [119]

    J., Schlegel=durham, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Schlegel=durham, D. J. A., P, D., , & Davis, M. F. 1998, THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 500, 525

    1998

  112. [120]

    & Struck, C

    Schulz, S. & Struck, C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 185

    2001

  113. [121]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32

    2013

  114. [122]

    L., et al

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., et al. 1994, ApJ, 429, 572

    1994

  115. [123]

    R., Calzetti, D., & Kinney, A

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schmitt, H. R., Calzetti, D., & Kinney, A. L. 1998, AJ, 115, 909

    1998

  116. [124]

    & Schnorr-Müller, A

    Storchi-Bergmann, T. & Schnorr-Müller, A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 48

    2019

  117. [125]

    Sun, M., Ge, C., Luo, R., et al. 2021

    2021

  118. [126]

    Sutherland, R. S. & Dopita, M. A. 2017, ApJS

    2017

  119. [127]

    M., Harrison, C

    Swinbank, A. M., Harrison, C. M., Tiley, A. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 381

    2019

  120. [128]

    F., Avila-Reese, V., Hernandez-Toledo, H., et al

    Sánchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V., Hernandez-Toledo, H., et al. 2018, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 54, 217

    2018

  121. [129]

    C., Fritz, J., et al

    Sánchez-García, O., Sodi, B. C., Fritz, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 99

    2023

  122. [130]

    2014, yCat, J/A+A/566/A1

    Tempel, E., Tamm, A., Gramann, M., et al. 2014, yCat, J/A+A/566/A1

    2014

  123. [131]

    D., Dopita, M

    Thomas, A. D., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2018 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 89

    2018

  124. [132]

    D., Groves, B

    Thomas, A. D., Groves, B. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 266

    2016

  125. [133]

    D., Kewley, L

    Thomas, A. D., Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2018 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 861, L2

    2018

  126. [134]

    D., Kewley, L

    Thomas, A. D., Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 100

    2019

  127. [135]

    B., Machado, R

    Tissera, P. B., Machado, R. E., Carollo, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 1656

    2018

  128. [136]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L38

    Tomičić, N., Hughes, A., Kreckel, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L38

    2018

  129. [137]

    L., Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G

    Tonnesen, S., Bryan, G. L., Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2009, ApJ, 694, 789

    2009

  130. [138]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 898

    2004

  131. [139]

    A., Moustakas, J., Diamond-Stanic, A

    Tremonti, C. A., Moustakas, J., Diamond-Stanic, A. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 663, L77

    2007

  132. [140]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 389

    2017

  133. [141]

    W., Pedlar, A., Axon, D

    Unger, S. W., Pedlar, A., Axon, D. J., et al. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 671

    1987

  134. [142]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 18

    Veilleux, S., Bolatto, A., Tombesi, F., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 18

    2017

  135. [143]

    & Osterbrock, D

    Veilleux, S. & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 63, 295

    1987

  136. [144]

    M., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2018, ApJ

    2018

  137. [145]

    M., Tonnesen, S., et al

    Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 98

    2020

  138. [146]

    B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M

    Westfall, K. B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 231

    2019

  139. [147]

    A., Pilyugin, L

    Zinchenko, I. A., Pilyugin, L. S., Grebel, E. K., Sánchez, S. F., & Vílchez, J. M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 2715

    2016

  140. [148]

    2021 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2380

    Zurita, A., Florido, E., Bresolin, F., Pérez, I., & Pérez-Montero, E. 2021 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2380

    2021

  141. [149]

    2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2359

    Zurita, A., Florido, E., Bresolin, F., Pérez-Montero, E., & Pérez, I. 2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2359

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.