Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Theoretical Three-Dimensional Diagram to Separate Star Formation, Active Galactic Nuclei, and Shocks in Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A theoretical three-dimensional diagram built from two optical line ratios and the [O III] velocity dispersion separates star formation, AGN, and shocks simultaneously in galaxy IFU data.

desk verdict A genuinely new and promising diagnostic idea, but the third axis is empirically anchored and the headline fast-shock detection sits exactly on the method's least-tested assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09962 v1 pith:M4GTQ46D submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.GA

Peixin Zhu , Lisa J. Kewley , Ralph S. Sutherland , Kathryn Grasha This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords 3DdiagnosticdiagramexcitationmechanismsstarformationactivegalacticnucleishocksintegralfieldspectroscopyvelocitydispersionNGC5728
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 proposes a three-dimensional diagnostic for classifying what excites the gas in a galaxy's optical spectra. Its axes are the line ratios [N II]/Hα and [O III]/Hβ together with the velocity dispersion of the [O III] line, and it places theoretical grids for HII regions, AGN photoionization, and radiative shocks in that space. The claim is that the three families occupy separated locations, so each spatial pixel (spaxel) of an integral-field spectrum can be assigned fractional contributions from star formation, AGN, fast shocks, and pure shocks, while also reading off gas metallicity, ionization parameter, pressure, and shock velocity. Applied to NGC 5728, the diagram recovers a star-forming ring, an AGN ionization bicone, and a fast-shock region at the bicone's base. This matters because most galaxies lack the X-ray and radio data usually needed to tell AGN from shocks, and previous optical methods either required special BPT sequences or left many galaxies ambiguous.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the theoretical 3D diagram itself, with axes log([N II]/Hα), log([O III]/Hβ), and the [O III] velocity dispersion. The HII and AGN model grids come from photoionization calculations, while the shock grids come from self-consistent radiative shock and precursor models; because photoionization models do not predict kinematics, the velocity-dispersion coordinates of HII and AGN spaxels are set empirically from the observed average dispersion of spaxels selected by BPT classification, whereas for shocks the shock velocity is used as a proxy for dispersion assuming an upright viewing angle. The separation mechanism is geometric: each spaxel's fractional contribution is computed as the normalized inverse distance to four basis spaxels representing HII, AGN, fast shock, and pure shock, with special rules assigning 100 percent shock contribution to spaxels lying above the shock basis points. The same geometry lets the models' underlying physical parameters be read off from the nearest model grid lines.

What would settle it

Simulate or observe a fast shock whose propagation direction lies nearly in the plane of the sky, so its line-of-sight velocity dispersion is near zero; the 3D diagram would place those spaxels at low [O III] dispersion and classify them as HII or AGN, while an independent tracer such as a broad kinematic component or an X-ray temperature measurement would identify them as shocks, falsifying the projection assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the space defined by [N II]/Hα, [O III]/Hβ, and the [O III] velocity dispersion, populated by theoretical model grids for HII regions, AGN narrow-line regions, and radiative shocks, separates the three excitation families well enough to classify every spaxel. All models are computed with the same atomic data, so differences in predicted line ratios come from the excitation mechanism rather than from inconsistent model assumptions. Applying the diagram to NGC 5728, the paper assigns each spaxel fractional contributions from HII, AGN, fast shocks, and pure shocks by inverse distance to four basis spaxels; the result is a roughly 1 kpc star-forming ring, an AGN bicone extending about 2 kpc from the nucleus, and a fast-shock-dominated structure at the bicone base that is a new detection for this galaxy, with pure shocks forming a surrounding shell. Because each spaxel lands near a model grid line, the same diagram yields gas metallicity, ionization parameter, and pressure for the separated regions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single measured [O III] velocity dispersion faithfully represents each excitation mechanism: the HII and AGN values are set empirically from selected spaxels, and for shocks the shock velocity is equated to the observed dispersion for shocks moving toward the observer, so any projection, beam smearing, or kinematic blending that changes the dispersion shifts spaxels vertically in the diagram and can turn a shock into an AGN or star-formation classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxies observed only in optical light can be mapped into star-formation-dominated, AGN-dominated, and shock-dominated regions without X-ray or radio data, enlarging the sample for AGN and feedback studies.
  • Separating mechanisms before measuring emission-line fluxes changes derived quantities; for NGC 5728 the Hα-based star formation rate of the ring is estimated at 1.17 ± 0.05 solar masses per year from MUSE data and 0.57 ± 0.04 from the lower-resolution data, both lower than estimates that did not remove shock and AGN contributions.
  • IFU data at roughly 1 arcsec resolution reproduce the same excitation structures as higher-resolution data, so the method can be applied to large optical IFU surveys and, at lower physical resolution, to high-redshift space-based IFU observations.
  • For NGC 5728 the diagram identifies a fast-shock-dominated region at the base of the AGN bicone and a surrounding shell of pure shock emission, structures that were not visible in 2D BPT classification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If projection effects were corrected using the galaxy inclination, the same diagram could classify shocks moving across the line of sight rather than only shocks propagating toward the observer, which is the orientation where the current version is most effective.
  • Because the three model families share atomic data and abundance sets, the same construction could be transplanted to other line-ratio pairs or to rest-optical lines at high redshift, making the diagram a template for classifying excitation in regimes beyond the local universe.
  • The basis-point and inverse-distance recipe is a heuristic, not a fit; its accuracy could be tested directly by comparing the resulting shock fractions against independent tracers such as X-ray plasma temperatures, radio jet structures, or mid-infrared H2 line ratios in the same galaxies.
  • Applying the method to large IFU samples could produce a statistical census of how often fast shocks accompany AGN outflows, but beam smearing must be controlled at coarse resolution or the shock fractions will be systematically biased.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-dimensional diagnostic diagram for classifying ionizing sources in optical IFU data, with axes log([N II]/Hα), log([O III]/Hβ), and emission-line velocity dispersion. The diagram is populated with MAPPINGS-based theoretical grids for H II regions, AGN narrow-line regions, pure shocks, and fast shocks. Applied to VLT/MUSE and WiFeS/S7 observations of NGC 5728, the method produces a star-forming ring at ~1 kpc, an AGN bicone extending ~2-5 kpc, and a fast-shock-dominated region at the base of the bicone, along with maps of fractional contributions from each mechanism. The authors argue that the diagram simultaneously separates star formation, AGN, and shocks using only optical data.

Significance. If the method holds up, it would be a valuable addition to the IFU toolkit, potentially applicable to large surveys such as SAMI and MaNGA and to high-redshift JWST observations. The paper has real strengths: the model grids are built with a common, self-consistent set of MAPPINGS calculations; the application to two independent datasets (MUSE and S7) yields broadly consistent spatial structures; and the Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation is clearly described. However, the central claim that the z-axis separates fast shocks from AGN and H II regions rests on an assumption that the authors themselves qualify, and several calibration choices are made from the same galaxy to which the method is then applied. These issues are load-bearing for the quantitative classification, so the present version requires substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, velocity dispersion axis]
  2. [Section 5, Steps (iv)-(vi)]
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 5, calibration of shock and basis grids]
  4. [Section 5, Step (v), fast/pure shock divider]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Step (ii)]
  2. [Section 5, Step (v)]
  3. [Figures 4 and 7]
  4. [Introduction]
  5. [Section 6 and Table 1]

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the HII/AGN vertical positions are averaged from the same NGC5728 spaxels being classified, shock grids are visually tuned to the same data, and high-sigma spaxels are then assigned to shocks by a data-chosen threshold.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph on estimating velocity dispersion for HII and AGN models]
    "We estimate the average velocity dispersion from the HII-dominated and AGN-dominated spaxels in the NGC5728 IFU data for the HII and AGN models used in Figure 1. ... we obtain the average velocity dispersion σO[III] = 100km/s for the HII-dominated spaxels and σO[III] = 125km/s for the AGN-dominated spaxels in NGC5728. The HII model and AGN model are then fixed at their corresponding values on the velocity dispersion axis in the theoretical 3D diagram."

    The z-coordinates of the 'theoretical' HII and AGN grids are not predicted by the photoionization models; they are the mean observed [O III] velocity dispersion of BPT-selected spaxels in the very same galaxy that the diagram is then used to classify. By construction, the BPT-selected HII and AGN populations have average sigma equal to the grid values, so the vertical separation between HII and AGN is a restatement of the input data rather than an independent prediction. The fractional-contribution scheme in Section 5 then uses these in-sample grid positions to compute distances, making the HII/AGN classification partly self-confirming.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, radiative shock model grid selection]
    "In this work, we adjust the contribution from the shocked and the precursor to Hβ luminosities in increments of 0.1 and select the best-fit shock model to match the data via visual inspection. We find a pure shock-dominated model with LHβ,precursor : LHβ,shock =0.1:0.9 and a precursor-dominated model with LHβ,precursor : LHβ,shock =0.7:0.3 provide the best-fit to two shock sequences of the NGC5728 MUSE IFU data."

    The precursor-to-shock Hβ ratio is a free parameter that sets where the pure-shock and fast-shock model grids sit in the diagram, and it is fitted by eye to the NGC5728 MUSE data before those grids are used to identify shock spaxels in the same galaxy. The apparent agreement between the shock grids and the data is therefore partly manufactured by tuning the mixture parameter to those data. The later 'first detection' of fast shocks in NGC5728 is not a parameter-free theoretical prediction, because the grid location used to define the shock region was calibrated on the same galaxy.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, basis-spaxel selection and Step (v)]
    "We chose the 100% fast shock spaxel from the maximum point where the AGN-fast shock mixing sequence intersects with the fast shock model grid. ... If zi > z3 and yi > 0.7, ffs = 1.0, fHII, fAGN, fps = 0"

    The threshold z3 is not an independent theoretical value; it is the sigma of a 100% fast-shock basis spaxel chosen by visual inspection from the NGC5728 data as the maximum intersection point with the tuned fast-shock grid. Step (v) then promotes every spaxel with sigma above this data-chosen threshold and high [O III]/Hβ to 100% fast shock. Consequently, the fast-shock map is essentially a high-sigma selection on the observed [O III] velocity dispersion axis, with the cutoff derived from the same spaxel distribution, so the claimed fast-shock detection is partly a definitional consequence of the selection rule rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The circularity is partial rather than total. The x- and y-axis predictions ([N II]/Hα and [O III]/Hβ) for the HII, AGN, and shock model grids come from independent MAPPINGS photoionization and shock calculations, so the BPT-plane content of the diagram is not circular. However, the z-axis is the load-bearing novelty, and for HII and AGN it is fixed using the average observed sigma of BPT-selected spaxels in NGC5728, the same galaxy later classified. For shocks, the precursor-to-shock Hβ ratio is visually tuned to the NGC5728 data, and the 100% fast-shock basis spaxel is chosen from the same data; Step (v) then converts all spaxels above that data-chosen sigma threshold into 100% fast shocks. The independent consistency checks (Chandra X-ray, JWST/MIRI molecular shock evidence, and the S7 WiFeS comparison) provide some external support, but the S7 comparison is the same galaxy and the Chandra/JWST comparisons are qualitative. The quoted Monte Carlo uncertainties only propagate line-flux and sigma measurement errors, not the in-sample calibration of the z positions, the visual tuning of shock grids, or the choice of basis spaxels. Overall, the central NGC5728 fast-shock detection reduces in part to a fitted threshold applied to the same data, so a score of 6 captures the partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central classification uses no new physical entity, but it rests on several calibration and modeling assumptions. The largest costs are the two velocity dispersion anchors, the visual precursor-to-shock ratios, and the hand-set classification thresholds, all of which are fitted to the same NGC5728 data and are not predicted by the models.

free parameters (7)
  • Velocity dispersion anchor for HII model grid (sigma_HII) = 100 km/s
    Average [O III] velocity dispersion of BPT-selected HII-dominated spaxels in NGC5728; fixes the vertical coordinate of the HII model grid in Section 4.
  • Velocity dispersion anchor for AGN model grid (sigma_AGN) = 125 km/s
    Average [O III] velocity dispersion of BPT-selected AGN-dominated spaxels; fixes the AGN grid vertical coordinate in Section 4.
  • Precursor-to-shock Hbeta ratio for pure shock grid = 0.1:0.9
    Selected by visual inspection to match the HII-pure shock mixing sequence in NGC5728 MUSE data; changes the line ratios and grid location (Section 3.3).
  • Precursor-to-shock Hbeta ratio for fast shock grid = 0.7:0.3
    Selected by visual inspection to match the AGN-fast shock sequence (Section 3.3).
  • Basis neighborhood threshold = d_n < 0.2
    Spaxels nearer than normalized distance 0.2 to a basis spaxel are assigned 100% contribution; hand-set in Section 5 Step (iv).
  • Fast/pure shock divider = log([O III]/Hβ) = 0.7
    Manual threshold in Section 5 Step (v) to separate 100% fast shock from 100% pure shock spaxels above the basis z thresholds.
  • AGN model E_peak for displayed grid = log E_peak/(keV) = -1.0
    The AGN grid in Figure 1 is displayed at a representative E_peak from the model range; this choice affects the grid's line ratios (Section 3.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MAPPINGS V5.2 models provide reliable emission-line predictions for HII regions, AGN NLRs, and radiative shocks.
    The entire diagram assumes the theoretical grids are a faithful representation of real excitation sources (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The three model sets are mutually consistent because they share atomic data and abundance sets, so line-ratio differences come only from excitation source.
    Stated in Section 3; needed to justify comparing data to the three grids.
  • ad hoc to paper Shock velocity can serve as a proxy for observed [O III] velocity dispersion assuming an upright viewing angle.
    Stated in Section 4; projection effects are acknowledged but not corrected, so the vertical shock grid positions are only approximate.
  • domain assumption Single-Gaussian [O III] sigma is dominated by the relevant excitation component and can be compared across HII, AGN, and shock spaxels.
    The analysis uses single-Gaussian fits from pPXF/LZIFU; multi-component cases are deferred to case-by-case treatment (Sections 2 and 4).
  • domain assumption Kauffmann (2003) and Kewley (2001) BPT boundaries correctly identify HII- and AGN-dominated spaxels for calibrating the sigma axis.
    Used in Section 4 to select the spaxels whose average sigma anchors the HII and AGN model grids.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Theoretical Three-Dimensional Diagram to Separate Star Formation, Active Galactic Nuclei, and Shocks in Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4GTQ46D

@misc{pith2026250609962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Theoretical Three-Dimensional Diagram to Separate Star Formation, Active Galactic Nuclei, and Shocks in Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4GTQ46D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09962}
}
abstract

The excitation sources in galaxies are frequently mixed due to AGN and stellar feedback, including star formation, active galactic nuclei (AGNs), and shock excitation. Disentangling the star formation, AGN, and shocks in galaxy integral-field spectra (IFU) at optical wavelengths is crucial to expanding the galaxy sample for AGN and stellar feedback studies, given the lack of multiwavelength observations for most of the galaxies that are observed in optical wavelengths. Previous methods to address this issue either have a limited application range or are highly uncertain in separating AGN from shock excitation (D'Agostino et al. 2019; Johnston et al. 2023). Here, we propose a theoretical three-dimensional (3D) diagram. This theoretical 3D diagram overcomes the limitations of previous methods and can simultaneously separate star formation, AGNs, and shocks in active galaxies. Along with the separation, the new theoretical 3D diagram also constrains the gas metallicity, ionization parameter, and gas pressure within the galaxy. By applying the Very Large Telescope (VLT)/MUSE IFU data and the Wide Field Spectrograph IFU data for NGC5728 on the theoretical 3D diagram, we find a star-forming ring surrounding the galaxy center with a projected radius of $\sim$1 kpc in the sky plane, an AGN ionized-bicone extended up to $\sim$2 kpc from the nuclear center, and a fast shock dominated disk region at the base of the AGN outflow, which is likely associated with a nuclear accretion disk or a result of jet-ISM interaction. The theoretical 3D diagram opens a new window to study the interplay among star formation, AGN, and shocks in active galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09962 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of MUSE IFU data for NGC 5728 on the new theoretical 3D diagram. The HII with log P/k = 6.0 and AGN models with log P/k = 7.4 and log Epeak/(keV) = −1.0 are shown on the diagram in red and black grids that consist of constant metallicity lines (12 + log(O/H) = 8.12, 8.42, 8.82 for HII model and 12 + log(O/H) = 8.43, 8.70, 8.80, 9.02, 9.26 for AGN model) and constant ionization parameter lines (log(U… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of MUSE IFU data for NGC 5728 on the new theoretical 3D diagram, with the spaxels color-coded by HII contribution fraction (top left), AGN contribution fraction (top right), fast shock contribution fraction (bottom left), and pure shock contribution fraction (bottom right). An interactive version of this figure is available in the online journal. bution estimates are robust against both observationa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D maps of the MUSE IFU data for NGC 5728, with spaxels color-coded by fractional contribution in the upper panel and the uncertainty in the bottom panel. From left to right, the distributions of HII contribution, AGN contribution, fast shock contribution, and pure shock contribution are shown, respectively. The spaxel with the highest [O III] luminosity, indicating the galaxy center, is marked with a cyan cross. ex… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D maps of [O III] λ5007 (the top panel), Hα (the middle panel), and [N II] λ6584 (the bottom panel) emission line fluxes of the MUSE IFU data for NGC 5728. From left to right, each panel contains the emission line flux maps contributed by HII, AGN, fast shocks, pure s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of WiFeS IFU data for NGC 5728 (observed in the S7 survey) on the new theoretical 3D diagram, with the spaxels color-coded by HII contribution fraction (top left), AGN contribution fraction (top right), fast shock contribution fraction (bottom left), a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2D maps of the S7 IFU data for NGC 5728, with spaxels color-coded by fractional contribution in the upper panel and the uncertainty in the bottom panel. From left to right, the distributions of HII contribution, AGN contribution, fast shock contribution, and pure shock…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 2D maps of [O III] λ5007 (the top panel), Hα (the middle panel), and [N II] λ6584 (the bottom panel) emission line fluxes of the MUSE IFU data for NGC 5728. From left to right, each panel contains the emission line flux maps contributed by HII, AGN, fast shocks, pure s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Optical Strong Line Ratios Cannot Distinguish Between Stellar Populations and Accreting Black Holes at High Ionization Parameters and Low Metallicities

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optical strong line ratio diagnostics cannot reliably separate stellar from black hole ionizing sources at high ionization parameter and low metallicity, and higher ionization lines such as He II or [Ne V] are needed ...

  2. Theoretical Diagnostics for the Physical Conditions in Active Galactic Nuclei under the View of JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    New mid-IR line diagnostics from MAPPINGS V models to measure physical conditions in AGN for JWST.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    1,6HPBE uB T ȷ pKߠ f)!ʂ #(UI5

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    L., Rich, J

    Alatalo, K., Cales, S. L., Rich, J. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224, 38, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/38 2016

  3. [3]

    T., Croom, S

    Allen, J. T., Croom, S. M., Konstantopoulos, I. S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1567, 10.1093/mnras/stu2057

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2057 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 20, 10.1086/589652

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    2010, 7735, 773508, 10.1117/12.856027

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, 7735, 773508, 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5, 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  8. [8]

    1996, The Astronomical Journal, 111, 346, 10.1086/117787

    Beck-Winchatz, B., Bohm, K.-H., & Noriega-Crespo, A. 1996, The Astronomical Journal, 111, 346, 10.1086/117787

    work page doi:10.1086/117787 1996

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3111, 10.1093/mnras/stw1234

    Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3111, 10.1093/mnras/stw1234

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Tuohy, I

    Binette, L., Dopita, M. A., & Tuohy, I. R. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 297, 476, 10.1086/163544

    1985 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935829

    Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., Nedelchev, B., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935829

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Page, M

    Blustin, A. J., Page, M. J., Fuerst, S. V., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 431, 111, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041775

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    M., González-Pérez, J

    Cairós, L. M., González-Pérez, J. N., Weilbacher, P. M., & Manso Sainz, R. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243028

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 138, 10.1086/381875

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 138, 10.1086/381875

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Kewley, L

    D'Agostino, J. J., Kewley, L. J., Groves, B. A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 485, L38, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz028

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A263, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449875

    Davies, R., Shimizu, T., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A263, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449875

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Kewley, L

    Davies, R. L., Kewley, L. J., Ho, I.-T., & Dopita, M. A. 2014 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 3961, 10.1093/mnras/stu1740

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Rich, J

    Davies, R. L., Rich, J. A., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2014 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 3835, 10.1093/mnras/stu234

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Groves, B., Kewley, L

    Davies, R. L., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1616, 10.1093/mnras/stw1754

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Ilha, G

    Deconto-Machado, A., Riffel, R. A., Ilha, G. S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140613

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Young, P

    Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., & Landi, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd8ce

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 1848, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    2012

  17. [25]

    2007, Astrophysics and Space Science, 310, 255, 10.1007/s10509-007-9510-z

    Dopita, M., Hart, J., McGregor, P., et al. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science, 310, 255, 10.1007/s10509-007-9510-z

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, Astrophysics and Space Science, 327, 245, 10.1007/s10509-010-0335-9

    Dopita, M., Rhee, J., Farage, C., et al. 2010, Astrophysics and Space Science, 327, 245, 10.1007/s10509-010-0335-9

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 455, 468, 10.1086/176596

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 102, 161, 10.1086/192255

    ---. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 102, 161, 10.1086/192255

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6542

    ---. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6542

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    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, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/10

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

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

    Dopita, M. A., Shastri, P., Davies, R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 217, 12, 10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/12

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68e

    Durré, M., & Mould, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68e

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf000

    ---. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf000

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Kewley, L

    D’Agostino, J. J., Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., et al. 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5e

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Poetrodjojo, H., Ho, I.-T., et al

    D’Agostino, J. J., Poetrodjojo, H., Ho, I.-T., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4907, 10.1093/mnras/sty1676

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Kewley, L

    D’Agostino, J. J., Kewley, L. J., Groves, B. A., et al. 2019 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4153, 10.1093/mnras/stz1611

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Asplund, M., Pettini, M., & Akerman, C

    Fabbian, D., Nissen, P. E., Asplund, M., Pettini, M., & Akerman, C. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 500, 1143, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810095

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., Paggi, A., & Maksym, W

    Falcao, A. T., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., Paggi, A., & Maksym, W. P. 2023, Deep Chandra Observations of NGC 5728: Morphology and Spectral Properties of the Extended X -ray Emission , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.00789

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 53, 385. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F

    2017

  32. [40]

    A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 506, 10.1093/mnras/sty2666

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Dopita, M

    Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 153, 75, 10.1086/421114

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Dettmar, R

    Haffner, L. M., Dettmar, R. J., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 969, 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.969

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Medling, A

    Hampton, E. J., Medling, A. M., Groves, B., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 3395, 10.1093/mnras/stx1413

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J., & Miller, D

    Hillier, D. J., & Miller, D. L. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 496, 407, 10.1086/305350

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Dopita, M

    Ho, I.-T., Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 3894, 10.1093/mnras/stu1653

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Groves, B., et al

    Ho, I.-T., Medling, A. M., Groves, B., et al. 2016, Astrophysics and Space Science, 361, 280, 10.1007/s10509-016-2865-2

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 421, 649, 10.1051/0004-6361:20047132

    Israelian, G., Ecuvillon, A., Rebolo, R., et al. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 421, 649, 10.1051/0004-6361:20047132

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    I., & Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 639, 10.1086/306708

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 700, 1299, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 907, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21272.x

    Jin, C., Ward, M., & Done, C. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 907, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21272.x

    2012

  43. [51]

    2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1152, 10.1093/pasj/psab065

    Joh, K., Nagao, T., Wada, K., Terao, K., & Yamashita, T. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1152, 10.1093/pasj/psab065

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, Beyond BPT : A New Multi - Dimensional Diagnostic Diagram for Classifying Power Sources Tested Using the SAMI Galaxy Survey , arXiv

    Johnston, V., Medling, A., Groves, B., et al. 2023, Beyond BPT : A New Multi - Dimensional Diagnostic Diagram for Classifying Power Sources Tested Using the SAMI Galaxy Survey , arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11831

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D., Banfield, J., et al

    Juneau, S., Goulding, A. D., Banfield, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 203, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac425f

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346, 1055, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    2003

  47. [55]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, J. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121, 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 961, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    2006

  50. [58]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019 b , Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 511, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 115, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 115, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13, 10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 315, L137

    Lutz, D., Genzel, R., Sternberg, A., et al. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 315, L137. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...315L.137L

    1996

  55. [63]

    2021, arXiv:2109.02684 [astro-ph]

    Mannucci, F., Belfiore, F., Curti, M., et al. 2021, arXiv:2109.02684 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.02684

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Markwardt, C. B. 2009, 411, 251, 10.48550/arXiv.0902.2850

    2009 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    M., U, V., Rich, J

    Medling, A. M., U, V., Rich, J. A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 2301, 10.1093/mnras/stv081

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 766, 10.1093/mnras/stac2251

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 103, 97

    Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., & Charbonnel, C. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 103, 97. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..103...97M

    1994

  60. [68]

    A., & Lotz, J

    Mortazavi, S. A., & Lotz, J. M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 1551, 10.1093/mnras/stz1331

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    V., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Wagner, A. Y., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5544, 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    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, 10.1093/mnras/stw3235

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 539, A143, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118158

    Nieva, M.-F., & Przybilla, N. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 539, A143, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118158

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, Astrophysics of black holes. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973blho.conf..343N

    1973

  65. [73]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989agna.book.....O

    1989

  66. [74]

    Pauldrach, A. W. A., Hoffmann, T. L., & Lennon, M. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 375, 161, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010805

    2001 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Groves, B., et al

    Poetrodjojo, H., D’Agostino, J. J., Groves, B., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 79, 10.1093/mnras/stz1241

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    1997, The Astronomical Journal, 114, 2708, 10.1086/118681

    Reipurth, B., Bally, J., & Devine, D. 1997, The Astronomical Journal, 114, 2708, 10.1086/118681

    1997 doi

  69. [77]

    C., Bally, J., & Rodríguez, L

    Reipurth, B., Heathcote, S., Yu, K. C., Bally, J., & Rodríguez, L. F. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 317, 10.1086/308757

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    Reynolds, R. J. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 282, 191, 10.1086/162190

    1984 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Kewley, L

    Rich, J. A., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/87

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221, 28, 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/28

    ---. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221, 28, 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/28

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    D., Rembold, S

    Riffel, R., Mallmann, N. D., Rembold, S. B., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 5640, 10.1093/mnras/stad2234

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, The Astrophysical Journal, 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Caldwell, N., Wilson, A

    Schommer, R. A., Caldwell, N., Wilson, A. S., et al. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 324, 154, 10.1086/165887

    1988 doi

  76. [84]

    Schwartz, R. D. 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 195, 631, 10.1086/153364

    1975 doi

  77. [85]

    T., Mushotzky, R

    Shimizu, T. T., Mushotzky, R. F., Meléndez, M., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3161, 10.1093/mnras/stw3268

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    T., Davies, R

    Shimizu, T. T., Davies, R. I., Lutz, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5860, 10.1093/mnras/stz2802

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    2019 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

    ---. 2019 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    M., & McKee, C

    Shull, J. M., & McKee, C. F. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 227, 131, 10.1086/156712

    1979 doi

  81. [90]

    2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 430, 655, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041274

    Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Plez, B., et al. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 430, 655, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041274

    2005 doi

  82. [91]

    2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1807.005

    Sutherland, R., Dopita, M., Binette, L., & Groves, B. 2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1807.005. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ascl.soft07005S

    2018

  83. [92]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 88, 253, 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  84. [93]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6541

    ---. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6541

    2017 doi

  85. [94]

    F., Kennicutt, R

    Sánchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 538, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353

    2012 doi

  86. [95]

    D., Groves, B

    Thomas, A. D., Groves, B. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 266, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/266

    2016 doi

  87. [96]

    D., Dopita, M

    Thomas, A. D., Dopita, M. A., Shastri, P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa855a

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 1639, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x

    Vazdekis, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 1639, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x

    2010

  89. [98]

    Veilleux, S., & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 63, 295, 10.1086/191166

    1987 doi

  90. [99]

    Vogt, F. P. A., Dopita, M. A., & Kewley, L. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 151, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/151

    2013 doi

  91. [100]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 108, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108

    Woo, J.-H., Bae, H.-J., Son, D., & Karouzos, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 108, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/108

    2016 doi

  92. [101]

    Zhang, L., Packham, C., Hicks, E. K. S., et al. 2024, The Galaxy Activity , Torus , and Outflow Survey ( GATOS ). ( IV ): Exploring Ionized Gas Outflows in Central Kiloparsec Regions of GATOS Seyferts , 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a4b

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    J., & Sutherland, R

    Zhu, P., Kewley, L. J., & Sutherland, R. S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd757

    2023 doi

  94. [103]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f37

    ---. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f37

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.