Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

JWST Observations of Starbursts: Relations between PAH features and CO clouds in the starburst galaxy M 82

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M 82's starburst makes CO a poorer tracer of molecular gas in small clouds.

desk verdict New JWST data give the first cloud-scale CO–PAH comparison in M 82, but the claimed shallower slopes are plausibly a sensitivity artifact, so the headline comparison to PHANGS is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14893 v4 pith:BDZTKEB5 submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.GA

V. Villanueva , A. D. Bolatto , R. Herrera-Camus , A. Leroy , D. B. Fisher , R. C. Levy , T. Böker , L. Boogaard
show 17 more authors
S. A. Cronin D. A. Dale K. Emig I. De Looze G. P. Donnelly T. S.-Y. Lai L. Lenkic L. A. Lopez S. Lopez D. S. Meier J. Ott M. Relano J. D. Smith E. Tarantino S. Veilleux F. Walter P. van der Werf
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords starburstgalaxyM82galacticoutflowsCO(1-0)emissionPAHbands7.7and11.3micronsmolecularcloudscalingrelationsJWSTMIRIimagingCO-darkgas
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

This paper asks whether carbon monoxide emission still reliably traces molecular gas when a galaxy is being torn apart by an intense starburst. The authors combine new mid-infrared images of M 82 with an archival CO(1-0) map, identify 306 molecular clouds, and measure how each cloud's CO brightness scales with the 7.7 and 11.3 micron emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). They find power-law slopes of $0.74\pm0.19$ and $0.81\pm0.25$, below the near-unity slopes measured in local main-sequence spiral galaxies. They interpret this as evidence that in the hardest radiation environments CO no longer traces the full molecular-gas budget, especially in the smallest clouds, likely because photoionization or emission suppression weakens CO. If correct, CO-only measurements of starburst outflows systematically underestimate the molecular gas available to be ejected or to form stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-cloud scaling relation between integrated CO(1-0) intensity and the intensity of the 7.7 and 11.3 micron PAH bands, measured on 306 cloud footprints extracted from the CO moment-0 map. PAHs are large carbon molecules that emit characteristic mid-infrared bands after absorbing ultraviolet photons, so they trace gas heated by young stars. The analysis sums each map inside the cloud footprints, fits log-log power laws, and compares the fitted slopes to control spirals, using a first-order continuum subtraction, MIRI filter-band corrections, and a fixed CO(2-1)-to-CO(1-0) line ratio to place the comparison on the same footing.

What would settle it

Re-derive the CO-PAH slopes after adding the faint clouds that fall below the current CO detection threshold, using a deeper, higher-resolution CO(1-0) map or a higher-J CO map matched to the MIRI resolution. If the recovered slopes rise to $\approx 0.9$–$1.0$, the claimed intrinsic shallowness in M 82 is an artifact of missing faint CO clouds; if they stay near $0.7$–$0.8$, the physical suppression interpretation is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the nearby starburst galaxy M 82, the relations between CO(1-0) line emission and the mid-infrared PAH features at 7.7 and 11.3 microns are genuinely shallower than the same relations in local main-sequence spiral galaxies. Using 306 molecular cloud footprints identified in the inner 2 kpc of an archival CO moment-0 map and matched-resolution JWST MIRI images, the authors fit power laws with slopes $m=0.74\pm0.19$ for F770W and $m=0.81\pm0.25$ for F1130W, against $m=0.93\pm0.05$ and $m=1.00\pm0.08$ for spirals after converting CO(2-1) to CO(1-0) with a fixed line ratio $R_{21}=1$. They also find moderate correlations between CO intensity and the F770W/F1130W ratio in most regions, with the scatter increasing sharply above $\log(I_{770}/I_{1130})\approx0.56$, concentrated in small clouds at large projected distances. The authors conclude that the hard starburst radiation field suppresses CO emission in the smallest clouds, so CO does not trace the full molecular-gas budget and PAH emission becomes relatively brighter.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the assumption that the CO map's limited sensitivity and cloud selection do not remove faint clouds; if they do, the fitted slopes are artificially shallow and the comparison to normal spirals does not measure a real physical difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CO-based molecular gas masses in M 82's outflow and streamer regions are likely lower limits, with the missing fraction greatest for clouds smaller than about 100 pc.
  • The 7.7 and 11.3 micron PAH bands become relatively brighter per unit CO as the starburst radiation field hardens, so PAH intensity can serve as a complementary gas tracer in extreme environments.
  • The CO-PAH scaling relations in starbursts are not universal; they depend on cloud size and location, so calibrations from normal spiral disks should not be applied to starburst outflows.
  • The sharp increase in scatter of the CO-F770W/F1130W relation above a band ratio of about 0.56 marks a transition to a regime where PAH ionization state and CO emission decouple.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If CO is suppressed rather than absent, high-excitation CO lines or direct H2 rotational lines should recover some of the missing gas, and a multi-J CO study of the same 306 clouds would test this directly.
  • Editorial inference: The same size-dependent bias would apply to high-redshift starbursts, where CO is often the only cold-gas tracer, so PAH-to-CO ratios could serve as a diagnostic of CO-dark gas.
  • Editorial inference: The near-zero CO-F770W correlation in the streamer-east region suggests the local radiation geometry, not just the global starburst intensity, sets the CO-to-PAH ratio.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new JWST/MIRI F770W and F1130W images of M 82 and combines them with the archival NOEMA CO(1-0) moment-0 map to measure, for 306 CO-selected clouds, the power-law relations between CO(1-0) integrated intensity and the 7.7 and 11.3 micron PAH band intensities. The authors report global slopes m = 0.74 +/- 0.19 (F770W) and m = 0.81 +/- 0.25 (F1130W), compare these with the PHANGS/C24 slopes of 0.93 +/- 0.05 and 1.00 +/- 0.08, and interpret the lower values as evidence that CO does not trace the full molecular gas budget in smaller clouds exposed to hard radiation. They also examine the CO versus F770W/F1130W ratio and find moderate correlations for some regional and size-selected subsets. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the CO data sensitivity and cloud-selection threshold could bias the slopes toward shallower values.

Significance. If the claimed slope difference were robust, it would be an interesting constraint on the CO-to-H2 calibration in starburst outflows and on PAH emission in extreme environments. The new MIRI data are valuable, and the paper is commendably transparent about its sensitivity limitations and about the R21 = 1.0 assumption used to compare with PHANGS. However, the central quantitative claim is currently not established: the reported slope differences are within about one combined standard deviation, and the CO-selected sample is truncated from below in exactly the quantity used as the dependent variable, a bias that the authors themselves identify but do not quantify. The result is therefore best treated as a promising but unproven hint rather than a measured physical difference.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The central claim that the M 82 slopes are lower than in PHANGS/C24 is not supported by the quoted uncertainties. For F770W, the difference is 0.93 - 0.74 = 0.19 with a combined uncertainty of sqrt(0.19^2 + 0.05^2) = 0.20, i.e., less than one standard deviation. For F1130W, 1.00 - 0.81 = 0.19 with a combined uncertainty of about 0.26, also less than one standard deviation. The text states these slopes are 'significantly below' the C24 values, but no significance test is presented. The authors should either provide a proper test of the slope difference or soften the claim to a marginal difference.
  2. [Sections 2.2, 4.1, 5; Appendix B] The CO intensities are truncated from below: the moment-0 map was blanked below SNR = 5 and QUICKCLUMP was run at a 3-sigma threshold, so low-CO clouds are missing from the sample. An OLS fit of log I_CO against log I_MIRI on such a censored sample is expected to produce a shallower slope, and the authors acknowledge in Section 5 that this 'could drive biases in the derivations of the power-law parameters, e.g. producing artificially shallower slopes.' Because this is the exact quantity on which the comparison to PHANGS rests, the caveat needs to be made quantitative: for example, by adding a censored-regression fit, by including upper limits from the noise map, or by simulating the effect of the CO threshold on the recovered slope. Without such an analysis, the offset from the PHANGS slopes is not yet established.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 3.1] The continuum subtraction is a first-order correction in which the continuum-to-total fraction is modeled by a four-parameter sigmoid fitted to MRS/IRS spectra and then extrapolated to all clouds. The continuum contributes 35-50% of the F770W band and about 35% of the F1130W band, so errors in this correction could alter the derived slopes and normalizations. The agreement with CAFE at a few locations is encouraging, but no uncertainty on the sigmoid parameters is propagated through Equation (1), and no test of the sensitivity of the final slopes to alternative continuum prescriptions is given. The authors should show that the main conclusions are robust to the continuum-correction choice.
  4. [Table 1] The note in Table 1 that 'all rp have p-values << 0.01' is not correct for several entries. For example, the streamer-east CO-F770W correlation has rp = 0.14 with only 46 clouds, which is consistent with the null hypothesis (p of order 0.3), and the outflow-south CO-F770W/F1130W correlation has rp = -0.22 with 104 clouds, which is not significant at p < 0.01. The blanket statement overstates the significance of the correlations and should be replaced by individually computed p-values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 3.2] The abstract states cloud sizes range from about 21 to 270 pc, while Section 3.2 and Figure 2 give a minimum size around 31 pc. Please make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Section 3.3] The R21 = 1.0 assumption is clearly stated, but the paper should note explicitly that if R21 varies with PAH brightness or with position in M 82, the comparison slope could be affected; the current statement only addresses the normalization.
  3. [Section 4.1] The fitting procedure is described as 'binned in the x-axis,' but the number of bins, the binning rule, and whether the fit uses bin means or individual points are not specified. Please provide these details so the reader can assess the fit.
  4. [Section 3.2] The choice to identify clouds in the 2D moment-0 map rather than the 3D datacube is explained, but the resulting line-of-sight blending bias is mentioned only in passing. A sentence quantifying the expected effect on the derived slopes would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CO-PAH slopes are empirical fits compared against external PHANGS/C24 measurements, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical scaling-relation measurement, not a derivation-from-first-principles result. The slopes m = 0.74 ± 0.19 and m = 0.81 ± 0.25 are obtained by ordinary least squares fits of log I_CO(1-0) versus log I_MIRI (Eqs. 2 and 3) and then compared to slopes from the external PHANGS/C24 sample (Chown et al. 2024). The CO clouds are selected from the archival NOEMA CO(1-0) moment zero map (Krieger et al. 2021), and the PAH intensities are measured in the same footprints; the slope is not defined in terms of any input parameter that would make the comparison an identity. The R21 = 1.0 conversion is taken from Weiß et al. (2005) and Walter et al. (2002), which are independent of the fitted values. The MIRI band and continuum corrections use Donnelly et al. (2025), an external calibration, and the same-group citations (Krieger et al. 2021; Bolatto et al. 2024) are data and observation references, not unverified theorems or ansatz adoptions. The paper explicitly warns in Sections 4.1 and 5 that the CO sensitivity and blanking could bias the slopes, producing artificially shallower values; this is a statistical selection caveat affecting the astrophysical interpretation, not a circularity. No load-bearing argument reduces to its own inputs, so the analysis is self-contained as an empirical comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on treating the NOEMA CO moment 0 map as a complete census of molecular clouds, on the MIRI background model, and on the continuum subtraction extrapolation; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Continuum fraction sigmoid parameters for F770W = alpha=0.16, beta=0.06, gamma=90.1, rho=0.59
    Fitted to MIRI-MRS/IRS spectra in Appendix A and applied to all clouds to subtract continuum in the 7.7 micron band.
  • Continuum fraction sigmoid parameters for F1130W = alpha=0.19, beta=0.1, gamma=147, rho=0.55
    Same procedure for the 11.3 micron band.
  • QUICKCLUMP detection thresholds = not fully stated (3-sigma, 6-pixel minimum diameter)
    Cloud sample composition depends on these choices, affecting all fitted slopes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption R21 = L_CO(2-1)/L_CO(1-0) = 1.0 is representative for M82 clouds (Weiß et al. 2005).
    Used to scale PHANGS CO(2-1) relations to CO(1-0) for comparison in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The jwst_background model correctly predicts the missing on-sky background for F770W and F1130W.
    Section 2.1: the MIRI background pointings failed, so model values (7 and 21 MJy/sr) replace measured backgrounds.
  • domain assumption Continuum fractions measured from a few MRS spaxels and two IRS regions can be extrapolated to all clouds via a function of the F770W/F1130W ratio.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A; required to obtain PAH-only intensities for all 306 clouds.
  • domain assumption CO clouds identified in the 2D NOEMA moment 0 map correspond to the emitting structures seen in the projected MIRI maps.
    Section 3.2: the authors explicitly note this 2D projection can introduce biases because clouds overlap along the line of sight.
  • domain assumption PAH 7.7 and 11.3 micron emission traces PAH abundance and is a proxy for molecular gas/star formation, as established in cited literature.
    Used throughout the interpretation; standard extragalactic assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST Observations of Starbursts: Relations between PAH features and CO clouds in the starburst galaxy M 82." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDZTKEB5

@misc{pith2026250114893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST Observations of Starbursts: Relations between PAH features and CO clouds in the starburst galaxy M 82},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDZTKEB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14893}
}
abstract

We present a study of new 7.7-11.3 $\mu$m data obtained with the James Webb Space Telescope Mid-InfraRed Instrument in the starburst galaxy M 82. In particular, we focus on the dependency of the integrated CO(1-0) line intensity on the MIRI-F770W and MIRI-F1130W filter intensities to investigate the correlation between CO content and the 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m features from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in M 82's outflows. To perform our analysis, we identify CO clouds using archival $^{12}$CO($J$=1-0) NOEMA moment 0 map within 2 kpc from the center of M 82, with sizes ranging between $\sim$21 and 270 pc; then, we compute the CO-to-PAH relations for the 306 validated CO clouds. On average, the power-law slopes for the two relations in M 82 are lower than what is seen in local main-sequence spirals. In addition, there is a moderate correlation between $I_{\rm CO(1-0)}$-$I_{\rm 7.7\mu m} /I_{\rm 11.3\mu m}$ for most of the CO cloud groups analyzed in this work. Our results suggest that the extreme conditions in M 82 translate into CO not tracing the full budget of molecular gas in smaller clouds, perhaps as a consequence of photoionization and/or emission suppression of CO molecules due to hard radiation fields from the central starburst.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From left to right: M 82 NOEMA CO(J=1-0), MIRI-F770W, and MIRI-F1130W images in cutouts of 5′ ×4.2 ′ . The left panel also contains the molecular clouds identified in Section 3.2 (white contours), the centroid of the CO(J = 1−0) and the different regions identified in the starburst as described in Krieger et al. (2021). The inset in the left panel correspond to the NOEMA beamsize at ν = 115 GHz. The green crosses in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of sizes of the 306 CO clouds we identify in the NOEMA map (θmean = 1. ′′8 ≈ 31 pc) using QUICKCLUMP as described in Section 3.2. The red-dashed line marks the median size for the cloud sizes. The inset includes the distributions of clouds respect to the five regions we use to characterize M 82 (see Section 3.2). 2020). The details of this analysis are described in the appen￾dices. Clouds can be identif… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ICO(1−0) versus IMIRI770 (top), and IMIRI1130 (bottom). Points in left panels are colored in the five regions we adopt to classify the clouds in M 82 (see Section 3.2). We also include the best-fit linear relations we obtain for the whole sample after binning the points in the x-axis and performing an ordinary least square (OLS) linear fitting using the model y = mx+b (black-dashed lines), and the Pearson’s r-value … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ICO(1−0) versus IMIRI770/IMIRI1130 ratio. Top: Symbols follow the same convention as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    2020, , 639, A43

    Alonso-Herrero , A., Pereira-Santaella , M., Rigopoulou , D., et al. 2020, , 639, A43

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  5. [5]

    R., Appleton , P

    Beir \ a o , P., Brandl , B. R., Appleton , P. N., et al. 2008, , 676, 304

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Bern \'e , O., Fuente , A., Goicoechea , J. R., et al. 2009, , 706, L160

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    S., Suess , K

    Bezanson , R., Spilker , J. S., Suess , K. A., et al. 2022, , 925, 153

    2022

  8. [8]

    D., Levy , R

    Bolatto , A. D., Levy , R. C., Tarantino , E., et al. 2024, , 967, 63

    work page 2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A., Law , D

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

    2015

  2. [10]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Calzetti , D. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falc \'o n-Barroso & J. H. Knapen , 419

    2013

  3. [11]

    2024, , 690, A348

    Chastenet , J., De Looze , I., Rela \ n o , M., et al. 2024, , 690, A348

    2024

  4. [12]

    2023, , 944, L11

    Chastenet , J., Sutter , J., Sandstrom , K., et al. 2023, , 944, L11

    2023

  5. [13]

    K., Sandstrom , K., et al

    Chown , R., Leroy , A. K., Sandstrom , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05397

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2021, , 500, 1261

    Chown , R., Li , C., Parker , L., et al. 2021, , 500, 1261

    2021

  7. [15]

    2019, , 482, 1618

    Cortzen , I., Garrett , J., Magdis , G., et al. 2019, , 482, 1618

    2019

  8. [16]

    2024, , 689, A263

    Davies , R., Shimizu , T., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A263

    2024

  9. [17]

    S., Chatzigiannakis , D., Bigiel , F., et al

    den Brok , J. S., Chatzigiannakis , D., Bigiel , F., et al. 2021, , 504, 3221

    2021

  10. [18]

    P., Lai , T

    Donnelly , G. P., Lai , T. S. Y., Armus , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19397

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Draine , B. T. 2011, , 732, 100

    2011

  12. [20]

    Draine , B. T. & Li , A. 2007, , 657, 810

    2007

  13. [21]

    T., Li , A., Hensley , B

    Draine , B. T., Li , A., Hensley , B. S., et al. 2021, , 917, 3

    2021

  14. [22]

    V., Kreckel , K., Sandstrom , K

    Egorov , O. V., Kreckel , K., Sandstrom , K. M., et al. 2023, , 944, L16

    2023

  15. [23]

    2022, , 935, 64

    Egusa , F., Gao , Y., Morokuma-Matsui , K., Liu , G., & Maeda , F. 2022, , 935, 64

    2022

  16. [24]

    B., Bolatto , A

    Fisher , D. B., Bolatto , A. D., Chisholm , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03686

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M., Sauvage , M., Charmandaris , V., et al

    F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Sauvage , M., Charmandaris , V., et al. 2003, , 399, 833

    2003

  18. [26]

    L., Hughes , S

    Freedman , W. L., Hughes , S. M., Madore , B. F., et al. 1994, , 427, 628

    1994

  19. [27]

    2019, , 887, 172

    Gao , Y., Xiao , T., Li , C., et al. 2019, , 887, 172

    2019

  20. [28]

    D., Bohlin , R., Sloan , G

    Gordon , K. D., Bohlin , R., Sloan , G. C., et al. 2022, , 163, 267

    2022

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  22. [30]

    Hill , M. J. & Zakamska , N. L. 2014, , 439, 2701

    2014

  23. [31]

    R., Roellig , T

    Houck , J. R., Roellig , T. L., van Cleve , J., et al. 2004, , 154, 18

    2004

  24. [32]

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

    2007

  25. [33]

    Indebetouw , R., Wong , T., Chen , C. H. R., et al. 2020, , 888, 56

    2020

  26. [34]

    P., Marrone , D

    Keenan , R. P., Marrone , D. P., & Keating , G. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03963

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    1998, , 498, 541

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 498, 541

    1998

  28. [36]

    Kennicutt , R. C. & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531

    2012

  29. [37]

    D., et al

    Krieger , N., Walter , F., Bolatto , A. D., et al. 2021, , 915, L3

    2021

  30. [38]

    K., Bolatto , A

    Leroy , A. K., Bolatto , A. D., Sandstrom , K., et al. 2023, , 944, L10

    2023

  31. [39]

    K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al. 2021 a , , 255, 19

    2021

  32. [40]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al. 2022, , 927, 149

    2022

  33. [41]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021 b , , 257, 43

    2021

  34. [42]

    K., Walter , F., Martini , P., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Martini , P., et al. 2015, , 814, 83

    2015

  35. [43]

    C., Bolatto , A

    Levy , R. C., Bolatto , A. D., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2021, , 912, 4

    2021

  36. [44]

    C., Bolatto , A

    Levy , R. C., Bolatto , A. D., Mayya , D., et al. 2024, , 973, L55

    2024

  37. [45]

    C., Bolatto , A

    Levy , R. C., Bolatto , A. D., Tarantino , E., et al. 2023, , 958, 109

    2023

  38. [46]

    A., Herter , T

    Marshall , J. A., Herter , T. L., Armus , L., et al. 2007, , 670, 129

    2007

  39. [47]

    K., Mangum , J

    Martini , P., Leroy , A. K., Mangum , J. G., et al. 2018, , 856, 61

    2018

  40. [48]

    D., Romano , R., Rodr \' guez-Merino , L

    Mayya , Y. D., Romano , R., Rodr \' guez-Merino , L. H., et al. 2008, , 679, 404

    2008

  41. [49]

    M., & Graham , J

    McCrady , N., Gilbert , A. M., & Graham , J. R. 2003, , 596, 240

    2003

  42. [50]

    D., Castles , J., Greve , A., & Downes , D

    McKeith , C. D., Castles , J., Greve , A., & Downes , D. 1993, , 272, 98

    1993

  43. [51]

    D., Dav \'e , R., Kere s , D., et al

    Oppenheimer , B. D., Dav \'e , R., Kere s , D., et al. 2010, , 406, 2325

    2010

  44. [52]

    J., Symeonidis , M., Vieira , J

    Page , M. J., Symeonidis , M., Vieira , J. D., et al. 2012, , 485, 213

    2012

  45. [53]

    P., Bisbas , T

    Papadopoulos , P. P., Bisbas , T. G., & Zhang , Z.-Y. 2018, , 478, 1716

    2018

  46. [54]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  47. [55]

    2013, , 772, 92

    Pope , A., Wagg , J., Frayer , D., et al. 2013, , 772, 92

    2013

  48. [56]

    & Hensler , G

    Recchi , S. & Hensler , G. 2013, , 551, A41

    2013

  49. [57]

    W., Thornley , M

    Regan , M. W., Thornley , M. D., Vogel , S. N., et al. 2006, , 652, 1112

    2006

  50. [58]

    W., Pineda , J

    Rosolowsky , E. W., Pineda , J. E., Kauffmann , J., & Goodman , A. A. 2008, , 679, 1338

    2008

  51. [59]

    1959, , 129, 243

    Schmidt , M. 1959, , 129, 243

    1959

  52. [60]

    T., Davies , R

    Shimizu , T. T., Davies , R. I., Lutz , D., et al. 2019, , 490, 5860

    2019

  53. [61]

    V., Papovich , C., Rieke , G

    Shipley , H. V., Papovich , C., Rieke , G. H., Brown , M. J. I., & Moustakas , J. 2016, , 818, 60

    2016

  54. [62]

    2024, , 690, A89

    Shivaei , I., Alberts , S., Florian , M., et al. 2024, , 690, A89

    2024

  55. [63]

    & Boogaard , L

    Shivaei , I. & Boogaard , L. A. 2024, , 691, L2

    2024

  56. [64]

    2017, Quickclump: Identify clumps within a 3D FITS datacube , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1704.006

    Sidorin , V. 2017, Quickclump: Identify clumps within a 3D FITS datacube , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1704.006

    2017

  57. [65]

    Smith , J. D. T., Draine , B. T., Dale , D. A., et al. 2007, , 656, 770

    2007

  58. [66]

    J., Westmoquette , M

    Smith , L. J., Westmoquette , M. S., Gallagher , J. S., et al. 2006, , 370, 513

    2006

  59. [67]

    S., Phadke , K

    Spilker , J. S., Phadke , K. A., Aravena , M., et al. 2023, , 618, 708

    2023

  60. [68]

    A., Bezanson , R., Spilker , J

    Suess , K. A., Bezanson , R., Spilker , J. S., et al. 2017, , 846, L14

    2017

  61. [69]

    2024, , 971, 178

    Sutter , J., Sandstrom , K., Chastenet , J., et al. 2024, , 971, 178

    2024

  62. [70]

    M., Papadopoulos , P

    Swinbank , A. M., Papadopoulos , P. P., Cox , P., et al. 2011, , 742, 11

    2011

  63. [71]

    M., Sun , J., et al

    Teng , Y.-H., Sandstrom , K. M., Sun , J., et al. 2022, , 925, 72

    2022

  64. [72]

    Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2008, , 46, 289

    2008

  65. [73]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  66. [74]

    2002, , 580, L21

    Walter , F., Weiss , A., & Scoville , N. 2002, , 580, L21

    2002

  67. [75]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021

    2021

  68. [76]

    Wei , A., Walter , F., & Scoville , N. Z. 2005, , 438, 533

    2005

  69. [77]

    P., de Geus , E

    Williams , J. P., de Geus , E. J., & Blitz , L. 1994, , 428, 693

    1994

  70. [78]

    2012, , 539, A116

    W \"u nsch , R., J \'a chym , P., Sidorin , V., et al. 2012, , 539, A116

    2012

  71. [79]

    2021, , 73, 257

    Yajima , Y., Sorai , K., Miyamoto , Y., et al. 2021, , 73, 257

    2021

  72. [80]

    S., Ho , P

    Yun , M. S., Ho , P. T. P., & Lo , K. Y. 1994, , 372, 530

    1994

  73. [81]

    K., Bolatto , A

    Zschaechner , L. K., Bolatto , A. D., Walter , F., et al. 2018, , 867, 111

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.