CALIBRATING UV STAR FORMATION RATES FOR DWARF GALAXIES FROM STARBIRDS
Open accessAbstract
Integrating our knowledge of star formation (SF) traced by observations at different wavelengths is essential for correctly interpreting and comparing SF activity in a variety of systems and environments. This study compares extinction corrected integrated ultraviolet (UV) emission from resolved galaxies with color–magnitude diagram (CMD) based star formation rates (SFRs) derived from resolved stellar populations and CMD fitting techniques in 19 nearby starburst and post-starburst dwarf galaxies. The data sets are from the panchromatic Starburst Irregular Dwarf Survey and include deep legacy GALEX UV imaging, Hubble Space Telescope optical imaging, and Spitzer MIPS imaging. For the majority of the sample, the integrated near-UV fluxes predicted from the CMD-based SFRs—using four different models—agree with the measured, extinction corrected, integrated near-UV fluxes from GALEX images, but the far-UV (FUV) predicted fluxes do not. Furthermore, we find a systematic deviation between the SFRs based on integrated FUV luminosities and existing scaling relations, and the SFRs based on the resolved stellar populations. This offset is not driven by different SF timescales, variations in SFRs, UV attenuation, nor stochastic effects. This first comparison between CMD-based SFRs and an integrated FUV emission SFR indicator suggests that the most likely cause of the discrepancy is the theoretical FUV–SFR calibration from stellar evolutionary libraries and/or stellar atmospheric models. We present an empirical calibration of the FUV-based SFR relation for dwarf galaxies, with uncertainties, which is ∼53% larger than previous relations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
FUV-based SFR indicators yield SFRs smaller by factors ranging from 1.3 to 3 compared to those inferred from resolved stellar populations.
“Several recent studies have highlighted a systematic offset between these approaches, with FUV based SFR indicators yielding results that are smaller by factors ranging from 1.3 to 3 compared to those inferred from resolved stellar populations”
From The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Southern Treasury (PHAST). II. The Spatially Resolved Recent Star Formation History in M31 (2026) · cites this paper as McQuinn et al. 2015
Section 5 reports that FUV-based SFRs are lower than SFRs from resolved stellar populations for the majority of the galaxies. It gives offsets of up to a factor of 4, however, rather than the claimed range of 1.3 to 3; Figure 11 also notes exceptions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOther studies have found non-negligible discrepancies, at the level of at least ~50% in predicted FUV flux, even in systems where the recent SFH appears comparatively steady over the last 100 Myr.
“Other studies have found nonnegligible discrepancies, at the level of at least ∼ 50% in predicted FUV flux, even in systems where the recent SFH appears comparatively steady over the last 100 Myr”
From The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Southern Treasury (PHAST). II. The Spatially Resolved Recent Star Formation History in M31 (2026) · cites this paper as McQuinn et al. 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 123 · Cited by 48
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [37]37. Ford, H. C., Bartko, F., Bely, P. Y., et al. 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3356, 234
- [66]66. Kurucz, R. L. 1992, Proc. IAU Symp. 149, The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed. B. Z. Barbuy & A. Renzini (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 225
- [82]82. Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in ASP Conf. Ser. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 251
- [95]95. O'Connell, R. W. 2005, Starbursts from 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, Vol. 329, ed. R. De Grijs & R. M. González Delgado (The Netherlands: Springer), 333
- [98]98. Regan, M., & The Sings Team 2004, in Proc. 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 4098
- [119]119. Westera, P. 2001, PhD thesis, Univ.
- Authors
- McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A. E., & Mitchell, N. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Raytheon (United States) (US)
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2015-07-27
- Volume
- 808
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W1513462491
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 123
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
- Keywords
- star formation rate, dwarf galaxies, starburst galaxies, post-starburst galaxies, ultraviolet emission, color-magnitude diagram, SFR calibration, resolved stellar populations, UV attenuation, GALEX
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
