Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 92 references

SQuIGG$\vec{L}$E: Observational Evidence of Low Ongoing Star Formation Rates in Gas-Rich Post-Starburst Galaxies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gas-rich post-starburst galaxies at z~0.6 are already quiescent, showing that star formation can shut down before cold gas is depleted.

desk verdict Genuinely new Hα data confirm low SFRs in gas-rich post-starbursts; the dust correction is the one real soft spot, but the paper handles it honestly and the central claim is probably right. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16459 v1 pith:F4OY2P4X submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.GA

Pengpei Zhu , Katherine A. Suess , Mariska Kriek , David J. Setton , Rachel Bezanson , Vincenzo Donofrio , Robert Feldmann , Andy D. Goulding
show 3 more authors
Jenny E. Greene Desika Narayanan Justin Spilker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords post-starburstgalaxiesgalaxyquenchingstarformationratesHalphaspectroscopymoleculargasKennicutt-SchmidtrelationactivegalacticnucleiKeck/NIRES
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 uses Keck/NIRES Hα spectroscopy of 13 massive post-starburst galaxies to measure instantaneous star formation rates, testing whether the large molecular gas reservoirs found earlier in these objects could hide dust-obscured star formation. The authors find clear Hα absorption with minimal emission infilling in 11 of 13 galaxies, implying dust-corrected star formation rates below about 4 solar masses per year. Combined with the molecular gas masses detected in five of these galaxies, the objects sit more than an order of magnitude off the standard Kennicutt-Schmidt relation. The paper concludes that these galaxies have already quenched even though they retain substantial cold gas, so quenching does not require complete gas depletion.

What carries the argument

Near-infrared spectroscopy from Keck/NIRES covering the Hα region, with emission-line fluxes measured by Gaussian fitting to continuum-subtracted spectra after subtracting FAST++ stellar continuum models. Star formation rates are derived from the Hα luminosity using the Kennicutt (1998) calibration, dust-corrected using stellar attenuation from SED fitting with a fixed ratio of AV,HII/AV,* = 1.86 following Price et al. (2014). The BPT diagram built from [N ii]/Hα and available [O iii]/Hβ ratios is used to diagnose the ionization source.

What would settle it

Obtain deep, high-signal-to-noise Balmer-line measurements or far-infrared/submillimeter observations for the five CO-detected post-starburst galaxies and derive dust-corrected star formation rates without relying on the SED-based attenuation ratio; if typical AV,HII approaches 4.4 magnitudes or the inferred SFRs approach 10 solar masses per year, those galaxies would no longer be offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation and the central claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the previously reported low star formation rates in gas-rich post-starburst galaxies are confirmed by Hα, making the galaxies very likely quiescent. Eleven of thirteen targets show clear Hα absorption with minimal infilling, corresponding to dust-corrected star formation rates below 4.1 solar masses per year, and the [N ii]/Hα ratios indicate that non-star-forming ionization sources (AGN, shocks, or hot evolved stars) may be inflating even these low rates. Therefore galaxies can quench before their cold molecular gas reservoirs are fully depleted, and the CO-detected objects are substantially offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation.

Load-bearing premise

The star formation rates rest on assuming that the stellar attenuation measured from SED fitting accurately represents the dust attenuation toward the Hα-emitting gas, via a fixed ratio of AV,HII/AV,* = 1.86; if the true attenuation were much higher (about 4.4 magnitudes), the galaxies could lie back on the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation and the quench-before-deplete conclusion would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these galaxies are truly quiescent, quenching can take place while a galaxy retains a molecular gas reservoir of 1–5 × 10^10 solar masses.
  • The CO-detected post-starbursts are offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation by more than an order of magnitude in gas mass at a given star formation rate.
  • The elevated [N ii]/Hα ratios suggest that non-star-forming processes (AGN, shocks, or evolved stars) may dominate the residual emission, so even the low measured star formation rates could be overestimates.
  • Mechanisms that suppress star formation without removing gas, such as morphological quenching, are viable explanations for the observed state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit: if confirmed with Balmer-decrement or far-infrared constraints, these galaxies would directly challenge the common assumption in cosmological simulations that star formation rate is tightly tied to molecular gas mass.
  • A testable next step is to search for dense gas tracers like HCN or HCO+ in these systems; if the gas is unable to form stars because it is kinematically disturbed or lacks dense cores, the offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation would be explained.
  • The high [N ii]/Hα ratios could also be interpreted as evidence of a diffuse warm ionized medium rather than AGN activity, a distinction that spatially resolved spectroscopy could settle.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Keck/NIRES rest-optical spectroscopy of 13 massive post-starburst galaxies at z~0.6 drawn from the SQuIGGLE sample, targeting the Hα region to obtain independent, more direct star formation rate measurements than the previous [O II]- or SED-based estimates. The authors detect Hα absorption in 11/13 targets and measure only weak line infilling, yielding dust-corrected SFRs below about 4 M_sun/yr for 12/13 objects, after excluding one AGN-dominated source. Comparing these SFRs with ALMA CO(2-1) molecular gas masses, they find that the five CO-detected galaxies have large H2 reservoirs (1-5e10 M_sun) but very low ongoing star formation, placing them more than an order of magnitude off the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation. The paper concludes that these galaxies have quenched before their cold gas reservoirs were depleted, and that the remaining molecular gas does not form stars efficiently.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an important observational constraint on the quenching process: it provides an independent Hα-based confirmation of low SFRs in gas-rich post-starburst galaxies, strengthening the case that massive galaxies can shut down star formation while retaining significant molecular gas. The paper's strengths include new Keck/NIRES data, Monte Carlo error propagation for all line measurements, a careful treatment of the known AGN in J1448+1010, and a candid discussion of the dust-correction caveat. The result directly tests the H2-to-star-formation connection assumed by many models and sharpens the tension with gas-removal-based quenching scenarios. The principal limitation is that the dust attenuation is not measured from Balmer lines for 12/13 objects, leaving a systematic uncertainty that is comparable in size to the claimed offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3 and §4] The central claim that the CO-detected galaxies are more than an order of magnitude offset from the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation rests on dust-corrected Hα SFRs, but the correction in §2.3 uses the SED-fitted stellar attenuation A_V,* converted to nebular attenuation with the fixed ratio A_V,HII/A_V,*=1.86 from Price et al. (2014). Because Hβ is not detected in 12/13 targets, no Balmer-decrement check is possible, and this ratio is a population average rather than a measurement for this sample. The authors themselves note in §4 that A_V,HII≈4.4 mag would place the gas-rich targets back on the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, while the local PSB A_V,HII distribution from Yesuf & Ho (2020) extends to roughly 3 mag. The quoted SFRs are therefore not limited by the Monte Carlo errors in Table 1 but by an unquantified systematic floor. I request an explicit treatment of this systematic, ideally a stacked Balmer-decrement limit from the existing SDSS spectra (or a stacked Hβ upper limit), and a correspondingly qualified statement about how robust the 'quench before depletion' conclusion is to the adopted attenuation prior.
  2. [§2.3 and Figure 1] The measured Hα fluxes are small infilling fluxes superposed on strong stellar Balmer absorption, with typical EWs near 1 Å, and they are obtained after subtracting the FAST++ continuum model that is locally scaled to the NIRES spectra. The Monte Carlo errors in Table 1 account for random noise but not for systematic differences in continuum placement or template choice. Since the paper invokes the contrast between absorption and infilling to argue that residual star formation is minimal, I ask for a robustness test that quantifies this systematic, for example by repeating the fits with the Prospector continuum models or by varying the continuum anchor regions. Such a test would establish whether the low inferred SFRs are insensitive to template uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'M_* ≳ ×10^11 M_sun' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'M_* ≳ 10^11 M_sun' or similar.
  2. [§4] The text in the discussion of dense gas tracers contains the duplicated word 'and and' in the sentence about future studies of higher-J CO transitions.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption states that CO-undetected targets are plotted as red stars and CO-detected targets as red stars with black edges, but the figure legend appears to use a different distinction; the caption and legend should be harmonized to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Table 1 and §2.3] For the two non-detections, J0912+1523 and J1053+2342, the upper limits on Hα flux and SFR are 2σ limits, but the text in §3 refers to them as having 'no measurable Hα emission'; it would be clearer to state explicitly that these are 2σ upper limits in the main text as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: new NIRES Hα data independently confirm low SFRs; dust correction is a stated input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The central new measurement is the Hα and [N II] flux from Keck/NIRES spectroscopy, an independent dataset not used in the BSS22 SFR estimates; the paper's Eq. (1) converts observed Hα luminosity to SFR, and no equation sets this Hα SFR equal to the SED-based SFR that is being confirmed. The dust correction in Sect. 2.3 uses A_V,* from FAST++ SED fitting as an input parameter, not as the predicted quantity, and the A_V,HII/A_V,* = 1.86 ratio is an externally adopted calibration (Price et al. 2014) with an explicit sensitivity test at ratio 3. The possibility of optically thick dust is openly quantified (A_V,HII = 4.4 mag would restore the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation), which shows the conclusion is not forced by the fitting procedure. Self-citations to BSS22, SQuIGGLE, and FAST++ provide the sample, gas masses, and continuum models, but the new Hα SFRs are not statistically forced to match those earlier values; they are compared to them. Any concern about the unverified dust correction is a systematic or correctness risk, not a circularity, because the Hα fluxes are new data and the correction is a stated assumption rather than a definitional identity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on inherited calibrations and models from prior work: gas masses from BSS22 (alpha_CO = 4.0, r21 = 1.0), attenuation values from FAST++ SED fits (Setton et al. 2020), and the nebular-to-stellar attenuation ratio of 1.86 from Price et al. (2014). No new physical entities are introduced. Several of these inputs come from the same group's earlier papers, so the independence of the new Hα confirmation is partial rather than complete, though the line fluxes themselves are new data.

free parameters (4)
  • A_V,HII / A_V,* ratio = 1.86 (sensitivity test at 3.0)
    Adopted from Price et al. (2014) to convert stellar SED attenuation to nebular attenuation for the Hα dust correction; the paper tests a higher ratio and finds the conclusion unchanged.
  • Per-galaxy A_V,* from FAST++ SED fits = A_V,HII values 0.28 to 3.10 mag (Table 1)
    SED-derived stellar attenuation used to correct each Hα flux; with Hβ undetected in 12/13 galaxies, individual Balmer decrements are unavailable.
  • alpha_CO CO-to-H2 conversion factor = 4.0 M_sun / (K km/s pc^2)
    Adopted Milky Way-like conversion from BSS22; the inferred gas masses and the Kennicutt-Schmidt offset scale inversely with alpha_CO.
  • r21 CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ratio = 1.0
    Assumed thermalized CO excitation when converting CO(2-1) to CO(1-0); the paper notes departures from this assumption would only increase the inferred gas masses.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Calzetti et al. (2000) dust law with R_V = 4.05 applies to the HII regions of these galaxies
    Used to convert A_V to E(B-V) and to compute dust-corrected Hα luminosities (Sect. 2.3).
  • domain assumption The Kennicutt (1998) Hα-to-SFR calibration with a Chabrier IMF (via Muzzin et al. 2010) is valid
    Eq. (1) converts Hα luminosity to SFR assuming Case B recombination and a standard IMF; uncertain at the factor-of-two level.
  • domain assumption FAST++ (Setton et al. 2020) stellar continuum models reproduce the true stellar Hα absorption depth
    Infilling fluxes are measured by subtracting the FAST++ continuum; an overpredicted absorption depth would bias the inferred SFRs low (Sect. 2.2).
  • domain assumption The Kewley et al. (2001) and Fernandes et al. (2010) BPT demarcations apply at z ~ 0.6
    Used to classify the [N II]/Hα ratios as AGN or LI(N)ER-like (Sect. 3.2, Fig. 4).
  • domain assumption The SQuIGGLE color selection (Suess et al. 2022a) identifies genuine post-starburst galaxies
    All 13 targets are inherited from the parent sample; the U-B and B-V color selection produces the A-star signatures the analysis assumes.
  • domain assumption Milky Way-like alpha_CO = 4.0 is appropriate for these galaxies
    The H2 masses used in the Kennicutt-Schmidt comparison (Fig. 3) assume this; the authors argue against lower values because the galaxies are not highly star-forming or turbulent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SQuIGG$\vec{L}$E: Observational Evidence of Low Ongoing Star Formation Rates in Gas-Rich Post-Starburst Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4OY2P4X

@misc{pith2026250116459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SQuIGG$\vecL$E: Observational Evidence of Low Ongoing Star Formation Rates in Gas-Rich Post-Starburst Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4OY2P4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16459}
}
abstract

ALMA observations have shown that candidate "post-starburst" galaxies (PSBs) at z$\sim$0.6 can retain significant molecular gas reservoirs. These results would imply that -- unlike many model predictions -- galaxies can shut down their star formation before their cold gas reservoirs are depleted. However, these studies inferred star formation rates (SFRs) either from [O II] line fluxes or from spectral energy distribution modeling, and could have missed large dust-obscured contributions to the SFRs. In this study, we present Keck/NIRES observations of 13 massive ($\mathrm{M_*}\gtrsim \times 10^{11} \,\, \mathrm{M_\odot}$) PSBs, which allow us to estimate $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ SFRs in these gas-rich post-starburst galaxies. We confirm the previously inferred low SFRs for the majority of the sample: 11/13 targets show clear $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ absorption, with minimal infilling indicating dust-corrected SFRs of $<4.1 \,\mathrm{M_\odot\, yr^{-1}}$. These SFRs are notably low given the large $\mathrm{H_2}$ reservoirs ($\sim 1-5 \times 10^{10} \,\, \mathrm{M_\odot}$) present in 5/13 of these galaxies, placing them significantly offset from star-forming galaxies on the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation for star-forming galaxies. The [N II]/H$\alpha$ ratios of all 13 PSBs imply contributions from non-star-forming ionization mechanisms (e.g., AGN, shocks, or hot evolved stars) to their $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission, suggesting that even these low ongoing SFRs may be overestimated. These low $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ SFRs, dust-corrected using A$_v$ estimates from SED fitting, confirm that these galaxies are very likely quiescent and, thus, that galaxies can quench before their cold gas reservoirs are fully depleted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16459 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Keck/NIRES spectra of all SQuIGGL⃗E PSBs in the Hα region. The panels in the odd-numbered columns display the FAST++ modeled continuum in green and the spectra in black; the grey-shaded area represents the noise. The target’s SDSS ID and redshift are labeled in the corner. The vertical dashed blue lines mark the Hα wavelength in vacuum (6564.6 ˚A). Each panel in the even-numbered columns illustrates the target’s emi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the SED SFRs measured by BSS22, and the Hα SFRs calculated here. The SFR mea￾surements from both studies are generally in good agreement except for J1448+1010, which possesses a broad and intense Hα emission line indicating an AGN. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the SQuIGGL⃗E PSBs on the BPT diagram, with the SDSS DR7 (Abazajian et al. 2009) −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 log ([NII]/Hα) −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 log ([OIII]/H β ) AGN LI(N)ER SF [OIII] or Hβ detected ( J1448+1010 (AGN) +CO-detected) 0.0 0.5 Normalized Counts SDSS DR7 [OIII] or Hβ detected [OIII] and Hβ undetected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The SFR vs. H2 gas mass for SQuIGGL⃗E PSBs. The CO-detected targets are plotted as red stars with black edges, and the CO-undetected samples are plot￾ted as red stars. Comparative samples of massive galax￾ies from COLDGASS at z ∼ 0 (Saintonge et al. 2011a,b), star-form…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  3. [3]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L17

    Alatalo, K. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l17 2015

  4. [4]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/106

    Alatalo, K., Lisenfeld, U., Lanz, L., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 106, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/106

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/106 2016

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72eb

    Alatalo, K., Bitsakis, T., Lanz, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72eb 2017

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Baron, D., Netzer, H., French, K. D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1792

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1792 2023

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1234 2016

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Belli, S., Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa70e5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa70e5 2017

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    Belli, S., Contursi, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Slob, M., Kriek, M., et al

    Beverage, A. G., Slob, M., Kriek, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02556

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    C., et al

    Bezanson, R., Spilker, J., Williams, C. C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c9c

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Suess, K

    Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Stasi´ nska, G., & Bruzual, A

    Binette, L., Magris, C. G., Stasi´ nska, G., & Bruzual, A. G. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 292, 13

    1994

  6. [14]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725 Dav´ e, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., &

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx108

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., & Pontzen, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3643

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    A., van de Voort, F., Rowlands, K., et al

    Davis, T. A., van de Voort, F., Rowlands, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz180 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.05683

    2019 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    A., & Sutherland, R

    Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 102, 161, doi: 10.1086/192255

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    Dressler, A., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 270, 7, doi: 10.1086/161093

    1983 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2207

    Feldmann, R., & Mayer, L. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2207

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1120

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M

    Fernandes, R. C., Stasi´ nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x Flores Vel´ azquez, J. A., Gurvich, A. B., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4812, doi: 10.1...

    2010

  20. [28]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/1

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A. I., & Tremonti, C. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 622, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732223

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Gensior, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Keller, B. W. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1184

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 2091, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16969.x

    2010

  25. [33]

    J., Kurk, J., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Kurk, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/68 11

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba534

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    P., & Steiner, J

    Halpern, J. P., & Steiner, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 269, L37, doi: 10.1086/184051

    1983 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇ s, D. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    Johnson, B., & Leja, J. 2017, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Dopita, M

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

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 700, 221, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Reddy, N

    Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 218, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    G., et al

    Kriek, M., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, Nature, 540, 248, doi: 10.1038/nature20570

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Yan, R., Ji, X., et al

    Lee, M.-Y. L., Yan, R., Ji, X., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348459

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 742, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/742

    Muzzin, A., van Dokkum, P., Kriek, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 742, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/742

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x

    Hernquist, L. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x

    2012

  42. [50]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd54a

    Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd54a

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Pickles, A. J. 1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 110, 863, doi: 10.1086/316197

    1998 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Wu, H

    Poggianti, B. M., & Wu, H. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 529, 157, doi: 10.1086/308243

    2000 doi

  45. [53]

    H., Kriek, M., Brammer, G

    Price, S. H., Kriek, M., Brammer, G. B., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/86

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308 Rodr ´ ıguez Montero, F., Dav´ e, R., Wild, V., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., & Narayanan, D

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308 Rodr ´ ıguez Montero, F., Dav´ e, R., Wild, V., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., & Narayanan, D. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2...

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2714

    Rowlands, K., Wild, V., Nesvadba, N., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2714

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    2011b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 32, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18677.x

    Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Kramer, C., et al. 2011b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 32, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18677.x

    2011

  49. [58]

    T., Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., et al

    Sargent, M. T., Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L20

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Schruba, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/37

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Bezanson, R., Suess, K

    Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., Suess, K. A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc265

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Verrico, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Setton, D. J., Verrico, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6096

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    Smercina, A., Smith, J. D. T., Dale, D. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcd

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 88, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3011

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac438

    Spilker, J., Bezanson, R., Bariˇ si´ c, I., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac438

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    S., Suess, K

    Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75ea

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  59. [68]

    A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J

    Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 846, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dc 12 Zhu et al

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Kriek, M., Price, S

    Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Price, S. H., & Barro, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e4

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022a, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac404a

    doi

  62. [71]

    A., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Suess, K. A., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022b, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b0

    doi

  63. [72]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Conroy, C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449b

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac818

    Tacchella, S., Smith, A., Kannan, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac818

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781, doi: 10.1038/nature08773

    2010 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 673, doi: 10.1086/426932

    Oliveira, C. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 673, doi: 10.1086/426932

    2005 doi

  69. [78]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L30

    Utomo, D., Kriek, M., Labb´ e, I., Conroy, C., & Fumagalli, M. 2014, ApJL, 783, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L30

    2014 doi

  70. [79]

    E., Setton, D

    Verrico, M. E., Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc38b

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    Wellons, S., Torrey, P., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    2015 doi

  72. [81]

    E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/179

    2012 doi

  73. [82]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    Wild, V., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08672, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08672

    Wild, V., Vale Asari, N., Rowlands, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08672, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08672

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    C., Henderson, C

    Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, 5492, 1295, doi: 10.1117/12.550925

    2004 doi

  76. [85]

    C., Rieke, M., et al

    Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9af7

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    Wu, P.-F., Bezanson, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    2023 doi

  78. [87]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd9

    Wu, P.-F., van der Wel, A., Bezanson, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd9

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    Yan, R., & Blanton, M. R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/61

    2012 doi

  80. [89]

    Yano, M., Kriek, M., van der Wel, A., & Whitaker, K. E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L21

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    M., Faber, S

    Yesuf, H. M., Faber, S. M., Trump, J. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84

    2014 doi

  82. [91]

    M., & Ho, L

    Yesuf, H. M., & Ho, L. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa43

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    I., Zaritsky, D., Lin, H., et al

    Zabludoff, A. I., Zaritsky, D., Lin, H., et al. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 466, 104, doi: 10.1086/177495

    1996 doi

  84. [93]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1821

    Zanella, A., Valentino, F., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1821

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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