Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Mapping the Excitation Mechanisms in the LINER I Active Galactic Nucleus NGC 5005: Positive Feedback and a Thin LINER Cocoon

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

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

Pith's one-line read Using HST narrowband imaging, this paper claims that NGC 5005's nucleus is a faint Seyfert-like AGN wrapped in a thin shock-excited LINER cocoon, with nearby star-forming clumps possibly triggered by the radio jet.

desk verdict First resolved S-BPT map of a LINER I nucleus is a solid addition, but the thin cocoon and jet-triggered star formation are threshold- and PSF-sensitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14931 v1 pith:RS2KU23L submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.GA

Anna Trindade Falcão , G. Fabbiano , M. Elvis , P. Zhu , S. Kraemer , W. P. Maksym , R. Middei , D. L. Król This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LINERgalaxiesAGNphotoionizationshockexcitationBPTdiagramnarrow-lineregionjet-ISMinteractionpositivefeedbackNGC5005
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

With ~4 pc pixels from HST narrowband images, this paper maps which ionization mechanism dominates each part of NGC 5005's narrow-line region, from the nucleus out to 8 kpc. It finds a compact Seyfert-like nucleus consistent with a low-luminosity AGN, surrounded by a thin (~20 pc) higher-excitation LINER cocoon that it attributes to shock heating of the interstellar medium. Around the cocoon sit two larger LINER zones, one photoionized by the AGN and one possibly powered by post-AGB stars plus inflow shocks, and an outer H II ring at ~4 kpc. Inside 500 pc, clumpy H II regions overlap the radio jet and a bubble-like Hα feature, suggesting jet-ISM interactions that may locally compress gas and trigger star formation. If right, the paper is the first to resolve the transition from AGN photoionization to shock-excited cocoon to surrounding LINER and star-forming gas in a LINER-dominated galaxy, and it adds a concrete case of AGN positive feedback.

What carries the argument

The spatially resolved S-BPT (Baldwin–Phillips–Terlevich) diagram built per WFC3 pixel from narrowband [O III], Hβ, Hα, and [S II] images. Each pixel's $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta)$ vs $\log([\mathrm{S\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha)$ position assigns it to Seyfert, LINER, or H II classes using Kewley et al. division lines. The new step is splitting LINER pixels at $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta) = -0.28$ into green and blue groups, which spatially separates the inner LINER body from the surrounding high-excitation cocoon. This per-pixel mapping is what allows the paper to locate the cocoon and connect excitation classes to radio jet and CO morphologies.

What would settle it

Re-map the central 200 pc with an instrument whose PSF is at least a factor of two smaller than the claimed cocoon thickness (or after PSF deconvolution), and with matched IFU kinematics: if the ring of pixels with $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta) \ge -0.28$ does not remain as a distinct ~10–20 pc shell, and if no shock-broadened line profiles appear at that radius, the cocoon and its positive-feedback interpretation lose their primary support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that NGC 5005's inner few hundred parsecs contain four distinct ionization regimes arranged in a nested structure. At the center, Seyfert-like pixels form a biconical (two opposed cone-like) structure colocated with the optical nucleus and a hard X-ray source; this is photoionization by a low-luminosity AGN, with an estimated bolometric luminosity between $10^{41}$ and $2\times10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Enclosing those cones is a thin LINER-like cocoon, 10–20 pc thick, defined by pixels with $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta) \ge -0.28$ within the LINER region of the S-BPT diagram; the paper argues this cocoon is shock-excited gas, possibly from a $\sim200$ km s$^{-1}$ outflow or from filtered AGN radiation outside the ionization cones. Beyond it, a $\sim1$ kpc LINER zone is attributed to AGN photoionization, and a $\gtrsim2$ kpc LINER zone to post-AGB stars and inflow shocks. Clumpy H II regions at 90–500 pc overlap the 1.5 GHz jet and an Hα bubble, which the paper interprets as jet- or outflow-driven compression that triggers localized star formation, while a $\sim4$ kpc H II ring is ordinary star formation in a bar-driven molecular ring.

Load-bearing premise

That the thin LINER cocoon is a genuine physical shell of shock-excited gas rather than an artifact of the eye-chosen $\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta) \ge -0.28$ split acting on gas blurred by the ~10 pc point-spread function, since the claimed shell thickness is only 10–20 pc.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LINER galaxies can host a faint AGN whose photoionization is visible only within ~20 pc, so nuclear Seyfert-like signatures in BPT maps do not require a powerful quasar.
  • The thin cocoon provides a resolved example of shock excitation in the ISM, so similar cocoons should be sought around other low-luminosity AGN with HST-class resolution.
  • Jet-ISM interaction is a viable positive-feedback channel: the H II clumps and the Hα bubble inside 500 pc may be star formation triggered by the radio jet or outflow, not by the AGN radiation field alone.
  • The kiloparsec LINER zones need not be AGN-powered; in NGC 5005, post-AGB stars and inflow shocks can account for the extended LINER-like emission outside ~2 kpc.
  • The H II ring at ~4 kpc is consistent with star formation along bar-driven molecular gas streams, implying that large-scale morphology and small-scale AGN feedback coexist in the same galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete testable extension: if the cocoon is shock-excited, its line ratios should vary with position along the shell and its kinematics should show broadening or velocity gradients of tens to ~200 km/s; this can be checked with IFU spectroscopy at HST resolution.
  • An implicit consequence the paper does not pursue: the same cocoon-splitting threshold applied to other LINER galaxies could reveal whether thin high-excitation shells are generic around low-luminosity AGN or rare, which would discriminate between outflow-shock and filtered-radiation models.
  • The positive-feedback interpretation predicts that the young stellar populations in the H II clumps near the jet are younger than stars elsewhere in the ring; resolved color-magnitude or SED fitting of those clumps would test the triggering claim.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents HST/WFC3 narrowband imaging of the LINER I galaxy NGC 5005, derives per-pixel S-BPT classifications using [O III]/Hβ versus [S II]/Hα, and constructs spatially resolved excitation maps from 4 pc pixels over an 8 kpc field. It reports a compact Seyfert-like nucleus, a ~20 pc thick LINER cocoon, a central ~1 kpc LINER region, an extended >2 kpc LINER zone, and H II regions including a ~4 kpc star-forming ring. The authors interpret the inner H II regions as possibly triggered by jet–ISM interactions and the cocoon as shock-excited gas.

Significance. If the small-scale claims hold, this is the first spatially resolved BPT study of a LINER-dominated galaxy at ~10 pc resolution and would be an important step in linking low-luminosity AGN to spatially resolved ionization structure. The data reduction is standard and the large-scale maps (Map 1) are a useful resource. However, the central new claims—the Seyfert biconical nucleus, the LINER cocoon, and the positive-feedback interpretation—rest on per-pixel classifications that are sensitive to the assumed Hα fraction and a post-hoc threshold, and on spatial scales comparable to the PSF. The paper provides no propagated uncertainties and no forward-model test, so these claims are not yet secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, §3.2] The classification depends on the assumed Hα fraction in the F658N bandpass. The paper adopts 45% but reports that using 30% shifts the fractions substantially (Map 3 Seyfert-like from 0.41% to 0.11%, cocoon-like from 2.69% to 3.92%) and, per §4.1.2, moves the secondary Seyfert-like cone into the cocoon class. Since the Seyfert-like cone and the cocoon are the core new results, the paper must show that the central conclusions are invariant under this systematic, or provide a full uncertainty map.
  2. [§3.2, Figure 4] The blue/green LINER split at log([O III]/Hβ) ≥ −0.28 is chosen after visually identifying a diagonal branch in the S-BPT diagram. This makes the cocoon a post-hoc selection rather than a prediction. A statistical or physical justification (e.g., a two-component fit to the LINER distribution, a bimodality test, or an independent diagnostic) is needed before the cocoon can be described as a distinct physical structure.
  3. [§4.1.1] The claimed cocoon thickness (~10–20 pc) is only 1–2 times the WFC3/UVIS PSF FWHM (~10 pc), and the "biconical" Seyfert-like region comprises just 10 pixels. With a bright nuclear [O III] source and a hard threshold in [O III]/Hβ, PSF wings can produce an annular cocoon-like structure even if the underlying excitation profile is smooth. The authors should forward-model the PSF (e.g., smooth a smooth radial profile and apply the same classification pipeline) or show that the cocoon persists with different thresholds and after deconvolution.
  4. [§4.1.2, §5] The "positive feedback" interpretation is based only on spatial coincidence between radio jet contours and H II-like pixels; no stellar population ages, extinction-corrected equivalent widths, or kinematic data are used to demonstrate recent star formation triggered by the jet. The abstract and conclusions present this as a finding despite the speculative wording in §4.1.2. Either the authors should add independent evidence or clearly label this as a working hypothesis to be tested with future IFU/age-sensitive observations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] The continuum filters F547M and F814W have 695 s exposures, much shorter than the line-filter exposures; the S/N threshold is applied to the line images but not to the continuum-subtracted products. The noise contribution from continuum subtraction should be included in the uncertainty budget.
  2. [§3.2] The pixel fractions quoted in the text and in Figure 4 would be easier to interpret if they included the number of pixels in each class for Maps 1–3, given the large differences in map area.
  3. [§4.2.2] The large-scale LINER fraction increases from 2.68% to ~15% when the lower Hα limit is adopted; this should be stated alongside the first mention of the large-scale LINER emission to make the systematic uncertainty clear.
  4. [Appendix A.2] Equation (A7) defines E(B−V) using a reference color C, but the text does not state how the reference region (the green circle in Figure 1) was selected or how the results depend on that choice. A brief discussion of this sensitivity would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild self-definitional labeling of the LINER cocoon from a post-hoc [O III]/Hβ threshold; the main BPT classification is externally benchmarked and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Figure 4; Section 4.1.1; Conclusions]
    "To explore this, we reclassified LINER pixels by log([OIII]/Hβ): those with log([OIII]/Hβ) ≥ −0.28 were assigned to a “blue LINER” group, and the rest to a “green LINER” group. ... blue LINER-like pixels form a surrounding structure around the Seyfert-like “cones,” resembling the LINER-like cocoon morphology reported by W. P. Maksym et al. (2016) and J. Ma et al. (2021)."

    The “blue LINER” class is defined by the same log([OIII]/Hβ) ≥ −0.28 cut that is later labeled “cocoon-like” in the pixel fractions and maps, so the “higher-excitation” property of the cocoon is true by construction for every pixel in that class rather than being an independently detected property. The threshold was itself chosen after visually identifying the diagonal branch in the same S-BPT diagram, meaning the claim that a distinct higher-excitation LINER subpopulation exists partly restates the selection rule.

full rationale

The core sr-S-BPT mapping is not circular: each pixel is classified using the fixed Kewley et al. (2006) dividing lines in the log([O III]/Hβ)–log([S II]/Hα) plane, with a 3σ S/N cut, and the resulting large-scale structures (the r ∼ 1 kpc LINER zone and the r ∼ 4 kpc H II ring) are compared with external radio and CO maps. No physical constant is fit to data and then renamed as a prediction. The only mild circularity is the post-hoc split of LINER pixels into “blue” and “green” groups at log([O III]/Hβ) = −0.28 after visually identifying a diagonal branch; the “higher-excitation LINER-like cocoon” is then essentially the selected subset relabeled. This weakens the physical distinctness of the cocoon and the 10–20 pc thickness claim, which is at the PSF scale, but it does not invalidate the main excitation maps or the outer H II ring. Self-citations to the same group’s earlier cocoon papers (Maksym et al. 2016; Ma et al. 2021) are comparative rather than load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several calibrated or chosen parameters: the Halpha deblending fraction, the post-hoc blue/green threshold, and the assumed intrinsic color for reddening. The standard Kewley diagnostics are external benchmarks. No invented entities are added.

free parameters (3)
  • Halpha fraction in F658N bandpass = 0.45 (with 0.30 lower limit)
    Adopted from comparison of total continuum-subtracted Halpha+[N II] flux in this image with total Halpha from Richards et al. 2015 and Ho et al. 1997. All S-BPT ratios involving Halpha shift if this fraction changes; the paper reports lower-limit classifications shift significantly.
  • Blue/green LINER threshold = log([O III]/Hbeta) = -0.28
    Chosen post hoc to separate the horizontal and diagonal LINER subpopulations in the S-BPT diagram (Section 3.2); defines the 'cocoon' pixels. Not derived from first principles or an independent diagnostic.
  • Intrinsic stellar color ratio C (F547M/F814W) = Not quoted numerically (value from low-dust green circle region)
    Assumed constant across the galaxy and equal to the reference low-dust region; used in the pixel-by-pixel reddening correction (Appendix A). If the reference region is reddened or its stellar population differs, all line fluxes are miscalibrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction curve applies with a single E(B-V) per pixel
    Used in Appendix A to convert color excess to extinction at each wavelength; standard for star-forming galaxies but not verified for NGC 5005's nuclear region.
  • domain assumption The low-dust reference region (green circle, Figure 1) has the same intrinsic stellar color as all other regions
    Needed to define C in Equation A6; an incorrect reference biases the reddening correction.
  • domain assumption Each WFC3 pixel's line emission is a single ionization zone
    Implicit in classifying each pixel as a single point in the S-BPT diagram; mixed line-of-sight gas (e.g., AGN plus star-forming) would place pixels on mixing lines and invalidate clean classification.
  • standard math Kewley et al. (2006) S-BPT boundary lines are valid for narrowband-derived ratios
    Classification lines are empirical and theoretical from optical spectra; applying them to narrowband measurements assumes the same line ratio definitions and no additional contamination.
  • domain assumption The [O III] flux within 1.5 kpc is entirely produced by AGN photoionization
    Stated in Section 4.1.1 before computing L_[O III] and L_bol; if star formation or shocks contribute, the inferred AGN luminosity is overestimated.
  • domain assumption Literature bolometric corrections (Heckman 2005; Duras 2020; Lamastra 2009) apply to this source
    Used to convert [O III] luminosity to X-ray and bolometric luminosity; the paper notes the two methods bracket the value and each has caveats.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Excitation Mechanisms in the LINER I Active Galactic Nucleus NGC 5005: Positive Feedback and a Thin LINER Cocoon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RS2KU23L

@misc{pith2026250614931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Excitation Mechanisms in the LINER I Active Galactic Nucleus NGC 5005: Positive Feedback and a Thin LINER Cocoon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RS2KU23L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14931}
}
abstract

We present a spatially resolved Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich analysis of the narrow-line region (NLR) in the low-ionization nuclear emission-line region (LINER) I galaxy NGC 5005 using Hubble Space Telescope narrowband imaging of [O III]${\lambda}$5007, H${\beta}$, H${\alpha}$, and [S II]${\lambda}{\lambda}$6717,6731. With a resolution of ${\lesssim}$0.1 (${\lesssim}$10 pc at z = 0.003), we dissect the NLR into H II (star-forming), Seyfert, and LINERs across spatial scales extending up to r$\sim$8 kpc from the nucleus. Our results reveal a compact nuclear region exhibiting Seyfert-like emission, consistent with photoionization by a low-luminosity active galactic nucleus (AGN). Surrounding this Seyfert-like nucleus is a thin ($\sim$20 pc thick) higher-excitation LINER-like cocoon, likely arising from shock-excited gas in the interstellar medium (ISM). Beyond this cocoon, a centrally localized extended (r$\sim$1 kpc) LINER-like region surrounds the Seyfert-like nucleus and cocoon, likely ionized by the AGN, while a more extended (r${\gtrsim}$2 kpc) LINER-like zone may be ionized by a combination of post-AGB stars and shocks from gas inflows. We also detect H II-like regions at both small and large scales. In the inner 500 pc, these regions may be triggered by jet-ISM interactions, potentially inducing localized star formation. At r$\sim$4 kpc, we identify an outer H II-like region tracing a large-scale star-forming ring, where ionization is dominated by young stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color map derived from the image ratio F547M/F814W (blue/red continua). North is up and east is to the left. This ratio map shows clearly the nuclear dust lane (in dark red). The color scale is chosen to enhance similar features. The green circle on the top left represents the low-dust region used in our analysis (see the Appendix). The black square has dimensions of 5″ × 5″, and marks the location of the nuclear re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Narrow-line images of the NLR and inner regions of NGC 5005 covering prominent emission lines. The top panels show an 80″ × 80″ (8 kpc × 8 kpc) Feld, while the bottom panels zoom into a 5″ × 5″ (500 pc × 500 pc) central region. Stellar continuum has been subtracted in all images, and only pixels with signal￾to-noise ratios greater than 3σ are shown. The black squares in the top panels indicate the area shown in the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top-left panel: S-BPT diagram of the inner 80″ × 80″ region in NGC 5005. Each 0.04 × 0.04 pixel is plotted as a single data point. ClassiFcation criteria from L. J. Kewley et al. (2006) are indicated as solid white lines. Red, green, and yellow points correspond to Seyfert-like, LINER-like, and H II–like (star-forming) excitation, respectively. A 3σ S/N cut has been applied. The green and blue ellipses highlight the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (left panel) compares the spatial distribution of these H II–like pixels (green contours) with the morphology of the Hα narrow image. The H II–like regions are colocated with two key features in the Hα image: 1. A peanut-shaped structure (70 pc × 30 pc), northwest of t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: spatially resolved excitation map of the inner 8 kpc region, corresponding to Map 1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hα narrow-line image of NGC 5005. Overlaid in blue are the low-resolution 1.5 GHz eMERLIN radio contours from R. D. Baldi et al. (2018), and in white are the CO(1-0) zeroth-moment contours from K. Sakamoto et al. (2000). North is up and east is to the left. 10 The Astr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008,ApJS, 178, 20

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    D., Williams, D

    Baldi, R. D., Williams, D. R. A., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 476, 3478

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    Riffel, A. R. 2014,MNRAS, 445, 2353 Bel/f_iore, F., Maiolino, R., Bundy, K., et al. 2015,MNRAS, 449, 867 Bel/f_iore, F., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2016,MNRAS, 461, 3111

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    G., Stasinska, G., & Bruzual, A

    Binette, L., Magris, C. G., Stasinska, G., & Bruzual, A. G. 1994, A&A, 292, 13

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    2011,MNRAS, 414, 3084

    Brightman, M., & Nandra, K. 2011,MNRAS, 414, 3084

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A., Law, D

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

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000,ApJ, 533, 682

    work page 2000

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2018,MNRAS, 480, 1106

    Cazzoli, S., Marquez, I., Masegosa, J., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 480, 1106

    2018

  2. [10]

    Cecil, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Veilleux, S., & Filippenko, A. V. 2001,ApJ, 555, 338

    2001

  3. [11]

    2015,A&A, 582, A63

    Cresci, G., Marconi, A., Zibetti, S., et al. 2015,A&A, 582, A63

    2015

  4. [12]

    J., Vogel, S

    Das, M., Teuben, P. J., Vogel, S. N., et al. 2003,ApJ, 582, 190

    2003

  5. [13]

    L., Groves, B., Kewley, L

    Davies, R. L., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2016,MNRAS, 462, 1616

    2016

  6. [14]

    L., Groves, B., Kewley, L

    Davies, R. L., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2017,MNRAS, 470, 4974

    2017

  7. [15]

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

    Dopita, M. A., Shastri, P., Davies, R., et al. 2015,ApJS, 217, 12

    2015

  8. [16]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1995,ApJ, 455, 468

    1995

  9. [17]

    2020,A&A, 636, A73

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020,A&A, 636, A73

    2020

  10. [18]

    2022,ApJ, 938, 105

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Morganti, R., et al. 2022,ApJ, 938, 105

    2022

  11. [19]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012,ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  12. [20]

    C., Kraemer, S

    Fischer, T. C., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2018,ApJ, 856, 102

    2018

  13. [21]

    Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Perola, G. C. 2005,A&A, 444, 119

    2005

  14. [22]

    P., & Steiner, J

    Halpern, J. P., & Steiner, J. E. 1983,ApJL,269, L37

    1983

  15. [23]

    Heckman, T. M. 1980, A&A,87, 152

    1980

  16. [24]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014,ARA&A, 52, 589

    2014

  17. [25]

    M., Ptak, A., Hornschemeier, G., & Kauffmann, G

    Heckman, T. M., Ptak, A., Hornschemeier, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2005,ApJ, 634, 161

    2005

  18. [26]

    J., Dopita, M

    Ho, I.-T., Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2014,MNRAS, 444, 3894

    2014

  19. [27]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. 1995,ApJS, 98, 477

    1995

  20. [28]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997,ApJS, 112, 315

    1997

  21. [29]

    C., & Peng, C

    Ho, L. C., & Peng, C. Y. 2001,ApJ, 555, 650

    2001

  22. [30]

    L., Mack, J., et al

    Hoffmann, S. L., Mack, J., et al. 2021, The DrizzlePac Handbook(Baltimore, MA: STScI )

    2021

  23. [31]

    2012,A&A, 540, A11

    Kehrig, C., Monreal-Ibero, A., Papaderos, P., et al. 2012,A&A, 540, A11

    2012

  24. [32]

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

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006,MNRAS, 372, 961

    2006

  25. [33]

    B., Schmitt, H., & Crenshaw, D

    Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2008,ApJ, 697, 1128

    2008

  26. [34]

    2009,A&A, 504, 73

    Lamastra, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2009,A&A, 504, 73

    2009

  27. [35]

    P., Fabbiano, G., et al

    Ma, J., Maksym, W. P., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2021,ApJ, 908, 155

    2021

  28. [36]

    Maiolino, R., & Rieke, G. H. 1995,ApJ, 454, 95

    1995

  29. [37]

    P., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al

    Maksym, W. P., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2016,ApJ, 829, 46

    2016

  30. [38]

    P., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al

    Maksym, W. P., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2021,ApJ, 917, 85

    2021

  31. [39]

    J., Bicknell, G

    Mukherjee, D., Wagner, S. J., Bicknell, G. V., et al. 2018,MNRAS, 476, 80

    2018

  32. [40]

    2009,MNRAS, 399, 1907

    Netzer, H. 2009,MNRAS, 399, 1907

    2009

  33. [41]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei(2nd ed.; Sausalito, CA: Univ. Science Books)

    2006

  34. [42]

    2012,ApJ, 756, 39

    Paggi, A., Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., & Karovska, M. 2012,ApJ, 756, 39

    2012

  35. [43]

    S., Grebel, E

    Pilyugin, L. S., Grebel, E. K., Zinchenko, I. A., et al. 2020,A&A, 634, A26

    2020

  36. [44]

    W., Maoz, D., Ho, L

    Pogge, R. W., Maoz, D., Ho, L. C., & Eracleous, M. 2000,ApJ, 532, 323

    2000

  37. [45]

    E., van Zee, L., Barnes, K

    Richards, E. E., van Zee, L., Barnes, K. L., et al. 2015,MNRAS, 449, 3981

    2015

  38. [46]

    1999,ApJ, 522, 157

    Risaliti, G., Maiolino, R., & Salvati, M. 1999,ApJ, 522, 157

    1999

  39. [47]

    L., Brightman, M., Stern, D., Malkan, M

    Saade, M. L., Brightman, M., Stern, D., Malkan, M. A., & García, J. A. 2022, ApJ, 936, 162

    2022

  40. [48]

    J., & Scoville, N

    Sakamoto, K., Baker, A. J., & Scoville, N. Z. 2000,ApJ, 533, 149

    2000

  41. [49]

    Schiano, A. V. R. 1985,ApJ, 299, 24

    1985

  42. [50]

    Schiano, A. V. R. 1986,ApJ, 302, 95

    1986

  43. [51]

    2010,ApJ, 711, 818

    Sharp, R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2010,ApJ, 711, 818

    2010

  44. [52]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A,331, L1

    1998

  45. [53]

    Stauffer, J. R. 1982,ApJ, 262, 66

    1982

  46. [54]

    T., et al

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Eracleous, M., Ruiz, M. T., et al. 1997,ApJ, 489, 87

    1997

  47. [55]

    Storchi-Bergmann, T., Lopes, R. D. S., McGregor, P. J., et al. 2010,MNRAS, 402, 819

    2010

  48. [56]

    K., Heckman, T

    Strickland, D. K., Heckman, T. M., Weaver, K. A., & Dahlem, M. 2000,AJ, 120, 2965 10 http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/svo/theory/fps/index.php? mode=browse&gname=HST 11 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:175(12pp), 2025 June 20 Trindade Falcão et al

    2000

  49. [57]

    2016,ApJ, 833, 190

    Terao, K., Nagao, T., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2016,ApJ, 833, 190

    2016

  50. [58]

    S., & Ho, L

    Ulvestad, J. S., & Ho, L. C. 2001,ApJL,562, L133

    2001

  51. [59]

    1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies(New York, NY: Springer)

    Vaucouleurs, G., Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies(New York, NY: Springer)

    1991

  52. [60]

    1994,ApJ, 433, 48

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 1994,ApJ, 433, 48

    1994

  53. [61]

    Veilleux, S., & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987,ApJS, 63, 295

    1987

  54. [62]

    N., & Grosso, N

    Younes, G., Porquet, D., Sabra, B., Reeves, J. N., & Grosso, N. 2012,A&A, 539, A104 12 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:175(12pp), 2025 June 20 Trindade Falcão et al

    2012

Pith tools

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