Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A nuclear spiral in a dusty star-forming galaxy at $z=2.78$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long-baseline ALMA observations and pixellated lens modelling resolve the central kiloparsec of the z=2.78 dusty star-forming galaxy SPT0538-50 into a dual spiral arm morphology with a tentative nuclear bar, implying a compact…

desk verdict First sub-kpc look at a DSFG nucleus: a careful lensing reconstruction with a tentative spiral and bar, but the morphology rests on one pipeline and wants a smooth-source null test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03644 v1 pith:7KO3KRFG submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.GA

H. R. Stacey , M. Kaasinen , C. M. O'Riordan , J. P. McKean , D. M. Powell , F. Rizzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesgalaxystructuredustystar-forminggravitationallensingnuclearspiralgalacticbarsstarformationratedensityALMAcontinuum
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 tries to establish that the innermost kiloparsec of the distant, dusty, star-forming galaxy SPT0538-50 at redshift 2.78 is not a chaotic merger pile-up but a structured, rotating nuclear disc. Using long-baseline ALMA continuum data and a pixellated gravitational lens reconstruction, the authors resolve the rest-frame 230 $\mu$m dust emission at a mean effective resolution of about 55 pc. They find a central exponential profile, a dual spiral arm morphology, clumps of about 100 pc, and tentative evidence for a bar in the central 300 pc. The implied star formation rate density near the centre (roughly $2000\ M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$) is super-Eddington compared with local ultraluminous infrared galaxies. If right, secular processes such as spiral arms and bars were already channelling gas into the centres of massive galaxies at cosmic noon, feeding nuclear starbursts and supermassive black hole growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is pixellated gravitational lens modelling: a semi-linear inversion that solves for lens parameters and source surface brightness simultaneously, with the source placed on a Delaunay grid adapted to the lens magnification. Long-baseline ALMA observations at 350 GHz (rest-frame about 230 $\mu$m) provide the data, and gravitational magnification boosts the effective resolution to a mean of about 55 pc. The paper tests robustness by repeating the inversion with three regularisation types (gradient, curvature, and area-weighted gradient), then uses isophote fitting with Fourier harmonics to identify the bar's signature in ellipticity and position-angle swing.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be resolved molecular-gas kinematics, for example CO or [CII] line emission at matched sub-kiloparsec resolution: if the reconstructed spiral arms and bar do not trace coherent, rotating gas motions with non-circular streaming along the arms, the morphological features would be artefacts or transient tidal debris rather than a secular nuclear disc. Imaging the lens environment to establish whether the lens is in a group would also decide whether the mass-sheet degeneracy rescales the reported physical numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the central kiloparsec of SPT0538-50 exhibits a dual spiral arm morphology and a potential nuclear bar that could facilitate gas inflow, feeding the nuclear starburst and supermassive black hole. The authors reconstruct the dust emission at an effective resolution of about 55 pc (varying from below 50 to 80 pc across the source) and show the same morphology emerges under gradient, curvature, and area-weighted gradient source regularisation. A two-dimensional Sérsic fit gives an effective radius of $0.6\pm0.1$ kpc and a Sérsic index of $1.2\pm0.2$, consistent with a compact exponential disc, but the residuals and isophote fits reveal the spiral arms and a position-angle swing of roughly 45 degrees that is a typical signature of a bar. The central region is resolved into two clumps rather than a point source, and the inferred star formation rate density reaches about $2000\ M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$, which the authors call super-Eddington relative to the limit for local ultraluminous infrared galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the foreground lens can be treated as an isolated mass distribution; if it actually belongs to a galaxy group, the inferred physical size and star formation rate of the source would be rescaled, although the spiral morphology itself would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the nuclear spiral and bar are real, compact rotationally supported discs existed at z=2.8, with effective radii near 0.6 kpc, 5 to 10 times smaller than typical stellar discs of dusty star-forming galaxies.
  • Secular dynamical processes could supply gas to the central 100 pc at rates consistent with the apparent super-Eddington starburst, reducing the need for major mergers to explain compact spheroid formation.
  • Strong lensing combined with long-baseline ALMA can reach roughly 55 pc in dusty star-forming galaxies, and smoothing to the native 30 mas resolution erases the spiral, so lensing is currently the only feasible route to these scales.
  • Applying the same approach to a sample of lensed dusty star-forming galaxies could determine how common nuclear discs, spirals, and bars are in this population.
  • Resolved gas kinematics at matched resolution would test whether the spiral arms and bar trace genuine non-circular gas flows rather than transient tidal debris.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper: if nuclear bars are common in dusty star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon, the usual picture in which gas-rich mergers dominate angular-momentum transport would need to share the stage with internal secular evolution.
  • Not in the paper: the super-Eddington surface density estimate assumes uniform dust temperature; a radially decreasing temperature gradient would raise the central value, while AGN heating would lower the inferred star formation rate, so multi-frequency dust observations could distinguish these cases.
  • Not in the paper: the same lensing technique applied to rest-frame optical or infrared data could test whether these nuclear structures sit inside larger stellar bars or discs, linking nuclear spirals to the large-scale morphology seen by other high-redshift surveys.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents long-baseline ALMA Band 7 (350 GHz) observations of the gravitationally lensed dusty star-forming galaxy SPT0538-50 at z=2.78, reconstructed in the source plane with the semi-linear pixellated lens-modelling code pronto. The authors use three source-regularisation choices (gradient, curvature, area-weighted gradient) and additional angular freedom in the lens potential, and report a rest-frame ~230 micron map with a surface-brightness-weighted effective resolution of ~55 pc. They find that the central kiloparsec has an exponential profile with effective radius 0.6±0.1 kpc and Sérsic index 1.2±0.2, a dual spiral arm morphology with ~100 pc clumps at 3–9 sigma, a possible nuclear bar within ~300 pc, and a super-Eddington central star-formation-rate surface density of about 2000 M_sun yr^-1 kpc^-2. They interpret these features as evidence that secular dynamical processes can funnel gas into the nucleus, and argue that gravitational lensing combined with long-baseline ALMA is the only way to reach these physical scales at cosmic noon.

Significance. If the reconstruction is faithful, this is a rare and important result: a compact, rotationally supported nuclear disc with spiral structure and a possible bar in a DSFG at z=2.78, at physical scales that are otherwise inaccessible. The paper has real strengths: the morphology is stable across three regularisation types; the reconstructed total flux agrees with an independent APEX/LABOCA measurement; the significance maps come from 1000 noise realisations; and the authors honestly discuss the mass-sheet degeneracy and the uniform dust-temperature assumption. However, the central claim is morphological, so its support depends on the absence of pipeline-induced structure. The evidence does not yet include a smooth-source control or an independent lens-modelling code, and the bar identification rests on isophote position-angle swings that have not been compared with an arm-only model. These gaps are fixable within the manuscript's scope and should be addressed before the result is stated as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 2-4] The dual-arm spiral and associated clumps are the central result, but they come from a single inversion pipeline (pronto) whose Delaunay source grid is adapted to the lens magnification. No control experiment is shown in which a known smooth source is passed through the same pipeline and reconstructed, to check that the magnification-adapted grid and the regularisation prior do not imprint coherent elongated structures near the tangential caustics. The 3-sigma mask accounts for noise, data artefacts and non-linear lensing effects, but not for this possible pipeline-level imprinting. The reference to Galan et al. (2024) concerns mock optical data and does not cover the present interferometric case. I request a mock-injection test or an independent source-grid/code reconstruction before the spiral-arm morphology is asserted.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 4] The 'potential nuclear bar' is inferred from a swing of the isophote position angle (from about 25 deg at 0.2 kpc to -20 deg at 0.6 kpc) together with ellipticity peaks in Fig. 4. These signatures are also expected for a two-arm spiral or an off-centre clump, and no quantitative comparison is made between a barred-spiral model and an arm-only model (for example, via the Fourier m=2 phase, bar/interarm contrast, or a model-selection statistic). Since the bar appears in the abstract and conclusions, the evidence should be strengthened, or the conclusion should be explicitly limited to 'tentative' and the bar claim removed from the abstract's definitive list.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3] The source-plane uncertainties and significance maps are generated from 1000 noise realisations at the maximum a posteriori lens model, and the text states that the posterior is narrow. However, the lens model parameters, including the multipole coefficients and the regularisation hyper-parameter, were determined jointly with the source surface brightness, so their covariance contributes to the total uncertainty. Neglecting these terms may understate the uncertainties on clump significance and on the isophote parameters used for the bar claim. Please report or bound the effect of lens-model parameter variations, or justify quantitatively why the narrow posterior implies a negligible contribution to the source-plane maps.
  4. [Section 4] The mass-sheet/group-environment degeneracy is acknowledged, and the authors correctly note that it would not change the morphology; however, it directly changes the physical scale (including the quoted ~55 pc resolution and the 0.6 kpc effective radius) and the super-Eddington surface-density interpretation. Because the lens environment of SPT0538-50 is unknown, this degeneracy is a live source of error in the astrophysical conclusions, not merely a caveat. At minimum, please estimate the range of magnification and physical-scale shifts allowed by plausible group contributions, or state more explicitly how the main conclusions would move under such a transform.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, second paragraph] Please clarify how the Delaunay source-grid vertex density is set relative to the magnification map and whether the same grid is used for all three regularisation types; this affects the interpretation of the median vertex spacing of ~50 pc quoted in Section 3.
  2. [Section 3, first paragraph] The definition of the 'surface-brightness-weighted mean FWHM of 55 pc' should be more explicit: state whether this is computed from the magnification-corrected beam in Fig. 2 and whether the three regularisation types give individually consistent values.
  3. [Section 3, Sérsic fit] The statement that the Sérsic fit is poor (Fig. 3) would benefit from a quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic and from reporting the priors, chain length, and convergence of the emcee fit.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'contours of signal-to-noise ratio in steps of 3-sigma' is ambiguous; specify whether these contours come from the noise-realisation significance maps or from the lensed image, and define the sigma used.
  5. [Section 4, first paragraph] There is a typographical double parenthesis after the citation 'Erwin et al. 2015))' that should be corrected.
  6. [Section 4, third paragraph] The statement that smoothing the source to the native 30 mas resolution erases any evidence of the spiral is expected given the resolution loss; it should not be used as a robustness argument without a forward-modelled low-resolution mock source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spiral and bar claims are descriptive outputs of the lens inversion, not fitted inputs, and the self-cited lens model is an independent prior fit to the same data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are morphological: the reconstructed source is described as having a dual spiral arm morphology and a possible nuclear bar. These features are properties of the pixellated lens-inversion output, not parameters that were fitted to the data and then relabelled as predictions. The lens model itself is taken from Stacey et al. (2024), a self-citation, but that work fitted the lens to the same ALMA visibilities, and this paper extends it by testing three regularisation types and additional angular freedom. The paper explicitly states that the three regularisation types produce consistent source morphologies, and it masks regions below 3-sigma significance. No equation or definition in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input fitted value. The acknowledged mass-sheet degeneracy changes the physical scale and inferred star formation rate but not the structure, so it does not make the morphological claim circular. The absence of an independent lens-modelling code or a smooth-source null test is a robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Overall, there is no load-bearing circular step that meets the evidentiary bar of quoting a specific reduction by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes observations, not a derivation. The central claims rest on the lens model and source priors inherited from Stacey et al. (2024), on regularisation assumptions that are tested in three variants, and on SED-based conversions with assumed uniform dust temperature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Lens model parameters (power-law slope, ellipticity, position angle, external shear, multipole coefficients) = Posterior distributions from Stacey et al. (2024); not restated here
    Fitted to the same ALMA visibilities; the reconstructed source plane depends on these.
  • Source regularisation hyper-parameter = Chosen by Bayesian evidence; exact value not quoted
    Controls the smoothness prior on the Delaunay source grid; the paper compares gradient, curvature and area-weighted gradient variants to test robustness.
  • Sersic profile parameters (effective radius, index, position angle) = Re = 0.6 +/- 0.1 kpc, n = 1.2 +/- 0.2, PA = 4 +/- 3 deg
    Fitted to the reconstructed source with emcee; supports the claim of an exponential central profile.
  • Assumed uniform dust temperature and emissivity = From the SED fit of Reuter et al. (2020); values not restated
    Converts the 230 micron continuum into SFR surface density; the super-Eddington central value would change if a temperature gradient exists.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lens mass distribution is well described by an ellipsoidal power-law with external shear and multipole perturbations up to fourth order.
    Invoked in Section 2; this is a standard but unproven parametrisation. Stacey et al. (2024) tested some angular freedom, but the assumption is not derived from independent data.
  • domain assumption The source surface brightness is smooth on the Delaunay grid, enforced by a regularisation prior.
    Invoked in Section 2; regularisation biases are known (Galan et al. 2024), which is why the authors run three variants. The morphology is stable across variants.
  • domain assumption Dust temperature and emissivity are uniform over the source when computing SFR surface density.
    Stated in Section 3 and acknowledged as likely non-uniform in Section 4; this underpins the super-Eddington SFR density claim.
  • ad hoc to paper There is no significant mass-sheet degeneracy or unmodelled group contribution to the lens potential.
    Section 4 states this effect is not considered; it would rescale the source size and SFR while preserving structure.
  • domain assumption Rest-frame 230 micron continuum traces obscured star formation with a Kroupa IMF and a modified blackbody SED.
    The SFR is taken from Reuter et al. (2020) SED fitting; AGN heating is noted as unruled-out in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nuclear spiral in a dusty star-forming galaxy at $z=2.78$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KO3KRFG

@misc{pith2026241203644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nuclear spiral in a dusty star-forming galaxy at $z=2.78$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KO3KRFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03644}
}
abstract

The nuclear structure of dusty star-forming galaxies is largely unexplored but harbours critical information about their structural evolution. Here, we present long-baseline Atacama Large (sub-)Millimetre Array (ALMA) continuum observations of a gravitationally lensed dusty star-forming galaxy at $z=2.78$. We use a pixellated lens modelling analysis to reconstruct the rest-frame 230 $\rm\mu$m dust emission with a mean resolution of $\approx55$ pc and demonstrate that the inferred source properties are robust to changes in lens modelling methodology. The central 1 kpc is characterised by an exponential profile, a dual spiral arm morphology and an apparent super-Eddington compact central starburst. We find tentative evidence for a nuclear bar in the central 300 pc. These features may indicate that secular dynamical processes play a role in accumulating a high concentration of cold gas that fuels the rapid formation of a compact stellar spheroid and black hole accretion. We propose that the high spatial resolution provided by long-baseline ALMA observations and strong gravitational lensing will give key insights into the formation mechanisms of massive galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image of SPT 0538−50 at 350 GHz. The inset box shows a zoom of the southern image with signal-to-noise ratio contours in steps of 3, 3 √ 2, 6.. etc. The synthesised beam FWHM is 0.029 × 0.026 arcsec with a position angle 68 deg East of North. 2. Data and lens modelling ALMA observations of SPT 0538−50 (SPT-S J053816-5030.8) in band 7 were obtained from the archive associated with project code 2016.1.01374.S (PI: Hez… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reconstructed dust continuum of SPT 0538 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sérsic and isophote fits of SPT 0538−50 (curvature reg￾ularisation). Left: noise-normalised residuals of the Sérsic fit in solid contours with steps of 3. Right: the reconstructed source with isophotes overplotted. The grey dashed lines show the po￾sition angle of the isophotes at 0.25 and 0.5 arcsec semi-major axis radius; the black line shows the position angle of the Sérsic. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 − q … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ellipticity (top; where 𝑞 is the axis ratio) and position angle (bottom; defined east of north) of isophotes fitted to the reconstructed source of SPT 0538−50. The shaded coloured re￾gions are the standard deviations of the fits and the grey area shows the median beam …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01918 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P

    Amvrosiadis, A., Lange, S., Nightingale, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01918 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 53 AstropyCollaboration,Price-Whelan,A.M.,Sipőcz,B.M.,etal.2018,AJ,156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    2019, A&A, 632, A33 Barcos-Muñoz, L., Leroy, A

    Audibert, A., Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A33 Barcos-Muñoz, L., Leroy, A. K., Evans, A. S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 117

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    S., Aguirre, J

    Bothwell, M. S., Aguirre, J. E., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 67

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.10.0

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.10.0

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    & Crocker, D

    Buta, R. & Crocker, D. A. 1993, AJ, 105, 1344

    1993

  6. [6]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, Phys. Rep., 541, 45

    2014

  7. [7]

    2013, A&A, 558, A124

    Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., Casasola, V., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A124

    2013

  8. [8]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

    2014

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    G., Guo, Y., et al

    Costantin, L., Pérez-González, P. G., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 499

    2023

  2. [10]

    I., Maciejewski, W., Hicks, E

    Davies, R. I., Maciejewski, W., Hicks, E. K. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 114

    2009

  3. [11]

    & Burkert, A

    Dekel, A. & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870 Di Mascia, F., Carniani, S., Gallerani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3667

    2014

  4. [12]

    L., Theis, C., Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Theis, C., Pringle, J. E., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 625

    2010

  5. [13]

    & Shlosman, I

    Englmaier, P. & Shlosman, I. 2000, ApJ, 528, 677

    2000

  6. [14]

    & Shlosman, I

    Englmaier, P. & Shlosman, I. 2004, ApJ, 617, L115

    2004

  7. [15]

    P., Fabricius, M., et al

    Erwin, P., Saglia, R. P., Fabricius, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4039

    2015

  8. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  9. [17]

    2021, A&A, 647, A194

    Fraternali, F., Karim, A., Magnelli, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A194

    2021

  10. [18]

    A., Athanassoula, E., Carrasco, L., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Athanassoula, E., Carrasco, L., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 943

    2007

  11. [19]

    A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A14 Galan,A.,Vernardos,G.,Minor,Q.,etal.2024,arXive-prints,arXiv:2406.08484 García-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Schinnerer, E., Boone, F., & Hunt, L. K. 2005, A&A, 441, 1011

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 691, A299

    Gillman, S., Smail, I., Gullberg, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A299

    2024

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  14. [22]

    Hodge, J. A. & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556

    2020

  15. [23]

    A., da Cunha, E., Kendrew, S., et al

    Hodge, J. A., da Cunha, E., Kendrew, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15846

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al

    Hodge, J. A., Smail, I., Walter, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 130

    2019

  17. [25]

    F., Bundy, K., Murray, N., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Murray, N., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 898

    2009

  18. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  19. [27]

    2006, Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, 693, 143 Knapen,J.H.,Beckman,J.E.,Heller,C.H.,Shlosman,I.,&deJong,R.S.1995, ApJ, 454, 623

    Jogee, S. 2006, Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, 693, 143 Knapen,J.H.,Beckman,J.E.,Heller,C.H.,Shlosman,I.,&deJong,R.S.1995, ApJ, 454, 623

    2006

  20. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3266

    Kretschmer, M., Dekel, A., & Teyssier, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3266

    2022

  21. [29]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  22. [30]

    R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J. C., & Crocker, R. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2716

    2018

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 968, L15 Le Conte, Z

    Kuhn, V., Guo, Y., Martin, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, L15 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1984

    2024

  24. [32]

    A., Bureau, M., et al

    Lelli, F., Davis, T. A., Bureau, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4066

    2022

  25. [33]

    M., Fraternali, F., et al

    Lelli, F., Di Teodoro, E. M., Fraternali, F., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 713

    2021

  26. [34]

    G., et al

    Lelli, F., Zhang, Z.-Y., Bisbas, T. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A106 Liu,D.,FörsterSchreiber,N.M.,Harrington,K.C.,etal.2024,NatureAstronomy Martini,P.,Regan,M.W.,Mulchaey,J.S.,&Pogge,R.W.2003,ApJS,146,353

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mihos, J. C. & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641

    1996

  28. [36]

    M., & McKean, J

    Ndiritu, S., Vegetti, S., Powell, D. M., & McKean, J. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19015 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P., et al

    Powell, D., Vegetti, S., McKean, J. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 515

    2021

  30. [38]

    M., Vegetti, S., McKean, J

    Powell, D. M., Vegetti, S., McKean, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1808 Prieto,M.A.,Fernandez-Ontiveros,J.A.,Bruzual,G.,etal.2019,MNRAS,485, 3264

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Reddish, J., Kraljic, K., Petersen, M. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 160

    2022

  32. [40]

    D., Spilker, J

    Reuter, C., Vieira, J. D., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 78

    2020

  33. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2179

    Ritondale, E., Vegetti, S., Despali, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2179

    2019

  34. [42]

    2024, A&A, 689, A273

    Rizzo, F., Bacchini, C., Kohandel, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A273

    2024

  35. [43]

    2023, A&A, 679, A129

    Rizzo, F., Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A129

    2023

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 5606

    Rizzo, F., Vegetti, S., Fraternali, F., & Di Teodoro, E. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5606

    2018

  37. [45]

    R., & Powell, D

    Rizzo, F., Vegetti, S., Fraternali, F., Stacey, H. R., & Powell, D. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3952

    2021

  38. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 1045

    Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., & Rizzo, F. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1045

    2023

  39. [47]

    P., Vegetti, S., Andreani, P., & White, S

    Rybak, M., McKean, J. P., Vegetti, S., Andreani, P., & White, S. D. M. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L40

    2015

  40. [48]

    Sanders, D. B. & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

    1996

  41. [49]

    M., et al

    Sheth, K., Melbourne, J., Elmegreen, D. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 136

    2012

  42. [50]

    Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 45

    1989

  43. [51]

    R., McKean, J

    Stacey, H. R., McKean, J. P., Powell, D. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3667

    2021

  44. [52]

    R., Powell, D

    Stacey, H. R., Powell, D. M., Vegetti, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A110

    2024

  45. [53]

    1981, Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, 111

    Toomre, A. 1981, Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, 111

    1981

  46. [54]

    & Iguchi, S

    Tsukui, T. & Iguchi, S. 2021, Science, 372, 1201

    2021

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8941

    Tsukui, T., Wisnioski, E., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8941

    2024

  48. [56]

    & Koopmans, L

    Vegetti, S. & Koopmans, L. V. E. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 945

    2009

  49. [57]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  50. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 21

    Walter, F., Neeleman, M., Decarli, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 21

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.