Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Large molecular and dust reservoir of a gravitationally-lensed submillimeter galaxy behind the Lupus-I molecular cloud

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three CO lines identify a lensed submillimeter galaxy at z = 3.753 as a massive, chemically enriched gas and dust reservoir.

desk verdict Solid redshift and lensing confirmation of a bright SMG, with a headline dust-to-gas ratio that depends on one opacity calibration and should be presented with its systematic range. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19100 v1 pith:P45NXSLH submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.GA

Yoichi Tamura , Akio Taniguchi , Tom J. L. C. Bakx , Itziar De Gregorio-Monsalvo , Masato Hagimoto , Soh Ikarashi , Ryohei Kawabe , Kotaro Kohno
show 9 more authors
Kouichiro Nakanishi Tatsuya Takekoshi Yoshito Shimajiri Takashi Tsukagoshi Bunyo Hatsukade Daisuke Iono Hideo Matsuhara Kazuya Saigo Masao Saito
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords GalaxyformationHigh-redshiftgalaxiesInterstellarmediumStarburstStronggravitationallensingSubmillimeterastronomy
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 identifies the redshift and intrinsic mass budget of MM J1545, an extremely bright (44 mJy at 1.1 mm) submillimeter galaxy that sits behind the Lupus-I molecular cloud. By matching three emission lines detected at 48.5, 97.0, and 218.3 GHz to the CO rotational ladder, it establishes the galaxy at $z = 3.753 \pm 0.001$. ALMA continuum imaging shows an arc and a companion spot, which the authors model as a strongly lensed source with magnification $\mu_g \approx 6.6$. After correcting for lensing, the galaxy holds about $10^{11.5}$ solar masses of molecular gas and $10^{9.4}$ solar masses of dust, yielding a dust-to-gas ratio near $\approx 0.0083$. The authors argue that such a high ratio, if it holds, implies a massive, chemically enriched cool interstellar medium just 1.6 Gyr after the Big Bang.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked ingredients: (1) the CO rotational ladder identification, anchored by the 2:1 frequency ratio between the 48.5 and 97.0 GHz lines and the detection of a third line at 218.3 GHz; (2) the gravitational lens model built with the Glafic code, which uses the observed arc-and-spot geometry and a cored singular-isothermal ellipsoid at an assumed redshift $z=0.5$ to derive the magnification $\mu_g = 6.6$; and (3) the modified-blackbody SED fit with a dust opacity law ($\kappa_\star = 10.41~\mathrm{cm^2\,g^{-1}}$ at 1900 GHz) that converts the continuum into a dust mass. The CO line ratios $R_{21}$ and $R_{41}$ and the CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO} = 4.0$ are standard assumptions that connect the measured line fluxes to molecular mass.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift of the foreground lensing galaxy J1545B via optical or near-infrared spectroscopy; if the lens is not at $z \approx 0.5$, the derived magnification—and therefore the intrinsic dust and gas masses and the claimed high dust-to-gas ratio—will not hold at the quoted values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper concludes that MM J1545 emits CO(2–1), CO(4–3), and CO(9–8) at a common redshift $z = 3.753 \pm 0.001$, with the 48.5 and 97.0 GHz lines matching exactly a 2:1 frequency ratio and the 218.3 GHz line placing the $J=9$ transition. The 1.3 mm continuum is resolved into an arc and an eastern spot separated by 1.6 arcsec; a singular-isothermal ellipsoid model at the assumed lens redshift $z=0.5$ reproduces this configuration with a magnification factor $\mu_g = 6.6$. Correcting the observed CO luminosities with standard line ratios and a CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor yields an intrinsic molecular mass $\log M_{\rm mol}/M_\odot \approx 11.5$, and a modified-blackbody fit to the far-infrared-to-millimeter SED gives $\log M_{\rm dust}/M_\odot \approx 9.4$, with a dust temperature of about 31 K. The resulting dust-to-gas ratio $\mathrm{DGR} \approx 0.0083$ sits at the high end among $z\sim4$ dusty star-forming galaxies, which the paper interprets as evidence for an unusually chemically enriched gas reservoir and an underlying stellar mass of at least $10^{10}$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The high dust-to-gas ratio and the chemical-enrichment claim rest on the adopted dust mass absorption coefficient; switching to the alternative standard opacity ($\kappa_\star \approx 0.11~\mathrm{cm^2\,g^{-1}}$ at 850 $\mu$m) lowers the dust mass by about half a dex and makes MM J1545 typical rather than extreme.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the redshift and line identification are correct, MM J1545 becomes one of the rare securely identified lensed starbursts at $z \approx 3.75$, suitable for resolved studies of ISM physics at that epoch.
  • The high dust-to-gas ratio implies a substantial stellar component (at least $10^{10}$, perhaps $\sim 10^{11}\,M_\odot$) must already be in place, even though the galaxy is faint in rest-frame optical and near-infrared images; deep JWST or ALMA imaging should reveal it.
  • The inferred gas depletion time of about 0.4 Gyr suggests star formation that is not extremely bursty, consistent with the relatively low dust temperature of roughly 31 K.
  • The CO excitation ladder ($R_{21} \approx 0.88$, $R_{41} \approx 0.52$) is similar to that of other SMGs, supporting the use of standard conversion factors for this source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alternative dust opacity is correct, the dust mass drops by about 0.5 dex and the dust-to-gas ratio becomes $\approx 0.0027$, placing MM J1545 within the typical range for coeval SMGs; the 'chemically enriched' conclusion would then depend on the dust model rather than on the data alone.
  • The lens model assumes $z=0.5$ for the foreground galaxy without a spectroscopic redshift; a redshift measurement for J1545B would directly test the magnification and the intrinsic masses.
  • The 7 mm continuum excess over the best-fit SED hints at an additional very cold dust component or free-free emission; ALMA Band 1 observations could distinguish these, and a cold component would raise the dust mass and DGR further.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents ATCA, Nobeyama 45 m, and ALMA observations of MM J1545, a 44 mJy 1.1 mm source found in the AzTEC/ASTE Lupus-I survey. The authors detect emission lines at 48.5, 97.0, and 218.2 GHz, and because the first two lines have exactly a factor-of-two frequency ratio and the ALMA line appears at 218 GHz, they identify them as CO(2-1), (4-3), and (9-8) at z = 3.753 +/- 0.001. ALMA 1.3 mm imaging reveals a western arc and an eastern spot separated by 1.6 arcsec, which the authors model with the Glafic lensing code as strong lensing by a foreground galaxy at an assumed redshift z = 0.5, yielding a magnification mu_g = 6.6. Using a modified-blackbody SED fit and external conversion factors (alpha_CO from Dunne et al. 2022, R21/R41 from Harrington et al. 2021, kappa_star from Draine 2003), they derive intrinsic dust and molecular masses log Mdust/Msun ~ 9.4 and log Mmol/Msun ~ 11.5 after correcting for magnification, and a dust-to-gas ratio DGR ~ 0.0083, which they interpret as a massive, chemically enriched cool-ISM reservoir at z ~ 4.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, MM J1545 is a rare, extremely bright lensed SMG at z = 3.75 whose intrinsic masses place it among the most gas- and dust-rich systems at that epoch. The redshift identification is well supported: the exact 2x frequency ratio between independent telescopes, the photometric redshift estimates from multiple SED templates, and the LFIR-L'CO consistency are concordant, and the lensing interpretation is reinforced by an independent empirical CO luminosity-line width relation that gives mu ~ 9, in reasonable agreement with the lens model. The paper is transparent about most of its dependencies, including alpha_CO, R21/R41, and the assumed lens redshift. The main caveat, discussed below, is that the headline high-DGR/chemical-enrichment claim is not robust to the dust opacity calibration, a systematic that the authors themselves quantify at about 0.5 dex.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2; Figure 5] The paper's central physical claim—that MM J1545 hosts a chemically enriched, massive cool-ISM reservoir—rests on the derived dust-to-gas ratio DGR ~ 0.0083, and this value is not robust to the adopted dust opacity. The §4.2 dust mass uses kappa_star = 10.41 cm^2/g at 1900 GHz (Draine 2003), but the text acknowledges that the standard Hildebrand (1983) calibration (kappa_star ~ 3 cm^2/g after scaling to 1900 GHz with beta_dust = 1.95) lowers Mdust by about 0.5 dex, giving log Mdust/Msun = 8.9 +/- 0.5 and DGR ~ 0.0027, which the authors describe as 'comparable to typical values found in lensed and unlensed SMGs or DSFGs at z ~ 4'. Because the abstract and conclusions headline only DGR ~ 0.0083 and the 'chemically-enriched reservoir,' the main result is currently conditional on a single calibration choice. In addition, the Figure 5 comparison may be systematically biased if the comparison samples adopt different dust opacity conventions. I request that the authors either justify the Draine calibration for this source and homogenize the opacity convention across the comparison sample, or reframe the headline conclusion to state that the DGR is consistent with typical z ~ 4 SMGs within the ~0.5 dex opacity systematic.
  2. [§3.2; §4.1] The magnification factor mu_g = 6.6 is adopted without a quantitative error budget, despite being central to the 'massive' masses quoted in the abstract. The lens model fixes the lens redshift at z = 0.5 from a photo-z that the authors describe as poorly constrained, fits only two image positions plus a PSF-convolved image-plane chi^2, and the authors note that mu 'may have a large uncertainty depending on the extent of source plane brightness.' The independent L'CO-deltaV check in §4.1 gives mu ~ 9, about 30% higher, which is within the scatter of the empirical relation but demonstrates that a factor-of-1.4 systematic is plausible. Since the intrinsic Mmol, Mdust, and SFR are all divided by mu_g, I ask the authors to give a realistic range for mu_g (for example, from varying the source-plane brightness distribution and the lens redshift assumption) and to propagate that range into the quoted intrinsic masses. The DGR conclusion is unaffected by this particular systematic, and stating that explicitly would help the reader.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'the lowest frequency setup, however, was flagged becase of poor weather conditions' contains a typo: 'becase' should be 'because'.
  2. [§3.1] The statement that the (J = 1-0 and 2-1) alternative would give z = 1.876 is inconsistent with the observed frequencies: 48.5 GHz as CO(1-0) gives z ~ 1.376, and 97.0 GHz as CO(2-1) gives z ~ 1.376. The z = 6.128 alternative for the (J = 3-2 and 6-5) pair is correct as written; please correct the z = 1.876 value.
  3. [Equation (1)] Equation (1) should be typeset with an explicit division: the text later evaluates ((543/400)^1.7)/3.5 ~ 0.48, so the current notation '(DeltaV400)1.7/3.5' is ambiguous and could be misread as an exponent of 1.7/3.5.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence 'L'^11_CO = 3.7 R21^{-1} ~ 4.2' is not consistent with Table 1, which gives L'_CO(2-1) = 4.2 and R21 = 0.88; this would imply L'_CO(1-0) ~ 4.8 rather than 4.2. The subsequent argument is unaffected because either value gives a similar magnification, but the numbers should be reconciled.
  5. [References] The Fujimoto et al. (2023) bibliographic entry points to 'http://ascl.net/2303.01658', which is an ASCL software record; the arXiv identifier should be supplied instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: line identification, lensing magnification, and mass/DGR estimates derive from independent data and external calibrations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any claimed result to its own inputs. The redshift identification (z = 3.753) follows from the observed frequencies of three candidate CO transitions, with independent support from photometric redshifts and the LFIR-to-L'CO correlation; the line-to-continuum ratio argument uses external calibrations rather than the target quantities. The lensing magnification (mu_g = 6.6) comes from a Glafic model fit constrained by the ALMA image, with a consistency check against the independent Harris et al. (2012) L'CO-deltaV relation. The molecular mass is obtained from CO line luminosities using external conversion factors (alpha_CO from Dunne et al. 2022; R21 and R41 from Harrington et al. 2021), and the dust mass is obtained from a modified-blackbody SED fit using the Draine (2003) opacity. The dust-to-gas ratio is the quotient of these two independently derived quantities. Self-citations such as Tamura et al. (2015) and Tamura et al. (2014) are legitimate prior observational work and calibration relations, not unverified premises used to define the present results. The paper explicitly discloses that an alternative dust opacity (Hildebrand 1983) would lower Mdust and the DGR by about 0.5 dex; this is a calibration sensitivity, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work in a load-bearing way.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Every derived quantity (redshift, magnification, Mmol, Mdust, DGR) sits on a chain of assumed conversion factors and model choices: alpha_CO = 4.0 from Dunne 2022, R21/R41 from Harrington 2021, kappa_star = 10.41 cm^2/g from Draine 2003, a cored SIE lens at an assumed z = 0.5, and modified-blackbody SED parameters. These are all standard inputs for this field, but the headline DGR is essentially set by the kappa_star choice, and the paper's own alternate calibration removes the 'high DGR' result. The redshift itself rests on two clean line detections plus a wide photometric-redshift prior centered near z = 4.

free parameters (6)
  • Gravitational magnification factor mu_g = 6.6 (lens model; ~9 from L'CO-deltaV check)
    Glafic cored-SIE fit to the ALMA image, with the lens photo-z unconstrained and assumed z = 0.5; used to delens LIR, SFR, masses, and DGR. Sections 3.2 and 4.1.
  • Dust temperature T_dust and emissivity index beta_dust = 30.7 (+1.7/-1.5) K, 1.95 (+0.13/-0.12)
    Modified blackbody fit to FIR-mm photometry with CMB heating correction; enters LIR and Mdust. Section 4.2.
  • Dust mass absorption coefficient kappa_star at 1900 GHz = 10.41 cm^2/g (Draine 2003); literature range 1-8 cm^2/g
    Hand-chosen from the literature; directly sets Mdust and the headline DGR. The alternative Hildebrand 1983 value gives ~0.5 dex lower Mdust. Section 4.2.
  • CO-to-molecular mass conversion factor alpha_CO = 4.0 Msun (K km/s pc^2)^-1 (Dunne 2022)
    Assumed conversion factor; sets Mmol and DGR; authors note Mmol could be ~0.5 dex lower with other choices. Section 4.2 and Table 1.
  • CO line brightness temperature ratios R21, R41 = 0.88 +/- 0.07, 0.52 +/- 0.14 (Harrington 2021)
    External excitation ratios used to convert CO(2-1) and CO(4-3) luminosities to CO(1-0) and hence Mmol. Section 4.2 and Table 1.
  • Redshift of lensing galaxy J1545B = assumed 0.5 (photo-z unconstrained)
    Adopted so that the observed 1.6 arcsec image separation corresponds to ~2*theta_E for a Faber-Jackson velocity dispersion; weakly constrained input to the lens model. Section 3.2.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Concordance cosmology with Omega_m = 0.3, Omega_Lambda = 0.7, H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc
    Stated in Section 1; sets luminosity distances used for luminosities and masses.
  • domain assumption Detected lines are 12CO rotational transitions, not 13CO, HCN, or HCO+
    Section 3.1: exact 2x frequency ratio between ATCA and 45 m lines, plus the LFIR-L'CO argument; non-12CO lines are expected to be an order of magnitude fainter.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts from SED templates (z ~ 4-5) are reliable enough to reject z = 1.876 and z = 6.128 line assignments
    Section 3.1 uses the SED photo-z to select the J = 2-1, 4-3, 9-8 solution; the 68% intervals are wide, e.g., 4.06 +0.92/-0.11.
  • domain assumption The Harris 2012 / Bothwell 2013 L'CO-deltaV relation applies to this source
    Section 4.1 uses it as an independent magnification check; the authors note ~0.5 dex scatter and unknown inclination.
  • domain assumption Dust absorption coefficient kappa_nu = kappa_star (nu/nu_star)^beta with kappa_star = 10.41 cm^2/g at 1900 GHz (Draine 2003)
    Section 4.2, load-bearing for Mdust and DGR; alternate calibrations reduce Mdust by ~0.5 dex.
  • domain assumption CO(1-0) luminosity traces molecular gas with alpha_CO = 4.0 Msun (K km/s pc^2)^-1 (Dunne 2022)
    Section 4.2 and Table 1; sets Mmol and DGR.
  • domain assumption The lens is a cored singular isothermal ellipsoid at z = 0.5 following the NIR Faber-Jackson relation
    Section 3.2 Glafic model; the lens photo-z is unconstrained and the source-plane structure and mu_g = 6.6 depend on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large molecular and dust reservoir of a gravitationally-lensed submillimeter galaxy behind the Lupus-I molecular cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P45NXSLH

@misc{pith2026250119100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large molecular and dust reservoir of a gravitationally-lensed submillimeter galaxy behind the Lupus-I molecular cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P45NXSLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19100}
}
abstract

We report the Australian Telescope Compact Array and Nobeyama 45 m telescope detection of a remarkably bright $S_\mathrm{1.1mm}$ = 44 mJy) submillimeter galaxy MM J154506.4-344318 in emission lines at 48.5 and 97.0 GHz, respectively. We also identify part of an emission line at $\approx$ 218.3 GHz using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). Together with photometric redshift estimates and the ratio between the line and infrared luminosities, we conclude that the emission lines are most likely to be the $J$ = 2-1, 4-3, and 9-8 transitions of $^{12}$CO at redshift $z = 3.753 \pm 0.001$. ALMA 1.3 mm continuum imaging reveals an arc and a spot separated by an angular distance of 1.6 arcsec, indicative of a strongly-lensed dusty star-forming galaxy with respective molecular and dust masses of $\log{M_{\rm mol}/M_\odot} \approx 11.5$ and $\log{M_{\rm dust}/M_\odot} \approx 9.4$ after corrected for $\approx$ 6.6$\times$ gravitational magnification. The inferred dust-to-gas mass ratio is found to be high ($\approx$ 0.0083) among coeval dusty star-forming galaxies, implying the presence of a massive, chemically-enriched reservoir of cool interstellar medium at $z \approx 4$ or 1.6 Gyr after the Big Bang.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ATCA spectrum and image of MM J1545. (Left) The 13 GHz wide ATCA spectrum with a 200 km s−1 resolution. Four tunings are shown in different colors. The inset highlights the line feature outlined by the dotted box. The continuum is not subtracted. (Right) The CO (2–1) integrated intensity image of MM J1545 taken with the ATCA which shows an 8.6σ line feature at the SMA position marked with the cross (Tamura et al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The CO spectrum of MM J1545. From top to bottom the ATCA, Nobeyama Radio Observatory (NRO) 45 m, and ALMA band 6 spectra are shown. The orange curve shows the best-fitting Gaussian. The inset in the bot￾tom panel shows the 4′′ × 4 ′′ images of CO (9–8) (contours at −2, 2, 3, · · · , 13σ with σ = 63 mJy km s−1 ) overlaid on the 1.3 mm continuum. et al. 2010), as discussed in Tamura et al. (2015). We first use only th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The superuniform-weighted ALMA 1.3 mm continuum image (contours) overlaid on the Subaru/MOIRCS KS-band image. The contours are drawn at (5, 10, 15, · · ·)×σ, where σ = 0.14 mJy beam−1 is the 1σ noise level. The beam size is indicated by the hatched ellipse at the bottom-left corner. The KS-band image shows the foreground lensing galaxy J1545B (Tamura et al. 2015). (b) The modeled image plane brightness which is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dust mass, molecular gas mass, and the dust-to-gas mass ratio (DGR) of MM J1545 (the red filled square) in comparison with lensed (Birkin et al. 2021, de￾noted as Bir21) and unlensed (Yang et al. 2017; Harrington et al. 2021; Hagimoto et al. 2023, denoted as Yan17,…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: The FIR-to-mm spectral energy distribu￾tion (SED) of MM J1545 (the red curve). The light-red band associated with the best-fitting SED represents the 68% con￾fidence interval. Bottom: The posterior distribution function (PDF) of the parameters in the SED fits. The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Baars, J. W. M. 2007, The Paraboloidal Reflector Antenna in Radio Astronomy and Communication, Vol. 348, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-69734-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-69734-5 2007

  3. [3]

    E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J

    Birkin, J. E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3862

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3862 2021

  4. [4]

    Frayer, D. T. 2002, PhR, 369, 111, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00134-5

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00134-5 2002

  5. [5]

    S., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Bothwell, M. S., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts562 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts562 2013

  6. [6]

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

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 da Cunha, E., Groves, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/13

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 2014

  7. [7]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1017, doi: 10.1086/379118

    doi:10.1086/379118 2003

  8. [8]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    doi:10.1086/162480 1984

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Dunne, L., Maddox, S. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., Ivison, R. J., & Gomez, H. L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2098

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, PASP, 122, 499, doi: 10.1086/653086

    Eales, S., Dunne, L., Clements, D., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 499, doi: 10.1086/653086

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ezawa, H., Kawabe, R., Kohno, K., & Yamamoto, S. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5489, Ground-based Telescopes, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., 763–772, doi: 10.1117/12.551391

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ezawa, H., Kohno, K., Kawabe, R., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7012, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes II, ed. L. M. Stepp & R. Gilmozzi, 701208, doi: 10.1117/12.789652

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ALMA Lensing Cluster Survey: Deep 1.2 Mm Number Counts and Infrared Luminosity Functions at $z\simeq1-8$, arXiv

    Fujimoto, S., Kohno, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ALMA Lensing Cluster Survey: Deep 1.2 Mm Number Counts and Infrared Luminosity Functions at $z\simeq1-8$, arXiv. http://ascl.net/2303.01658

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    K., Geach, J

    Garratt, T. K., Geach, J. E., Tamura, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad307

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Dunlop, J

    Geach, J. E., Dunlop, J. S., Halpern, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1789, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2721

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/20

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, A&A, 663, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142172

    Gururajan, G., B´ ethermin, M., Theul´ e, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142172

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Hagimoto, M., Bakx, T. J. L. C., Serjeant, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad784

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Weiss, A., Yun, M

    Harrington, K. C., Weiss, A., Yun, M. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc01 Lensed SMG behind Lupus-I Molecular Cloud 11

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    I., Baker, A

    Harris, A. I., Baker, A. J., Frayer, D. T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/152

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 105, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy104

    Hatsukade, B., Kohno, K., Yamaguchi, Y., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 105, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy104

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  16. [24]

    A., Karim, A., Smail, I., et al

    Hodge, J. A., Karim, A., Smail, I., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/91

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, doi: 10.5334/jors.148

    Hoyer, S., & Hamman, J. 2016, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, doi: 10.5334/jors.148

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    E., et al

    Ikarashi, S., Kohno, K., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3081, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18918.x

    2011

  20. [28]

    2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Ikeda, M., Nishiyama, K., Ohishi, M., & Tatematsu, K. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2001

  21. [29]

    D., Yun, M

    Iono, D., Wilson, C. D., Yun, M. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1537, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1537

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    2012, PASJ, 64, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.4.L2

    Iono, D., Hatsukade, B., Kohno, K., et al. 2012, PASJ, 64, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.4.L2

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Kohno, K., Tamura, Y., Hatsukade, B., et al. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 399, Panoramic Views of Galaxy Formation and Evolution, ed. T. Kodama, T. Yamada, & K. Aoki, 264

    2008

  25. [33]

    A., & Gilmore, G

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545 La Barbera, F., de Carvalho, R. R., de La Rosa, I. G., &

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    Lopes, P. A. A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1335, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17091.x

    2010

  27. [35]

    Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/145.3.271

    1969 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Marrone, D

    Litke, K. C., Marrone, D. P., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf057

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    S., & Whiffen, G

    Mathis, J. S., & Whiffen, G. 1989, ApJ, 341, 808, doi: 10.1086/167538

    1989 doi

  30. [38]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol. 445, Austin, TX, 51–56 Micha lowski, M., Hjorth, J., & Watson, D. 2010, A&A, 514, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913634

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, PASP, 125, 252, doi: 10.1086/670124

    Nakajima, T., Kimura, K., Nishimura, A., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 252, doi: 10.1086/670124

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, Science, 330, 800, doi: 10.1126/science.1193420

    Negrello, M., Hopwood, R., De Zotti, G., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 800, doi: 10.1126/science.1193420

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.2.2, 1.2.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8145703

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2023, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.2.2, 1.2.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8145703

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017

    Oguri, M. 2010, PASJ, 62, 1017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.1017

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, A&A, 530, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116921 pandas development team, T

    Omont, A., Neri, R., Cox, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116921 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 P´ eroux, C., & Howk, J. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Spilker, J

    Reuter, C., Vieira, J. D., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb599

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Vegetti, S., et al

    Rybak, M., Hodge, J. A., Vegetti, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa879

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 209, 766, doi: 10.1007/s10909-022-02730-y

    Rybak, M., Bakx, T., Baselmans, J., et al. 2022, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 209, 766, doi: 10.1007/s10909-022-02730-y

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/2

    Saintonge, A., Lutz, D., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/2

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Saito, M., de Gregorio, I., & Team SOLA. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 499, Revolution in Astronomy with ALMA: The Third Year, ed. D. Iono, K. Tatematsu, A. Wootten, & L. Testi, 215 Santamar ´ ıa-Miranda, A., de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I.,

    2015

  41. [49]

    L., et al

    Plunkett, A. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039419

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    S., Wilson, G

    Scott, K. S., Wilson, G. W., Aretxaga, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20905.x

    2012

  44. [52]

    L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L

    Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103, doi: 10.1086/306476

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Smail, I., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., et al

    Simpson, J. M., Smail, I., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1345

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Marrone, D

    Spilker, J. S., Marrone, D. P., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/149

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Aravena, M., Marrone, D

    Spilker, J. S., Aravena, M., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/124

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., et al

    Stach, S. M., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1536

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Smail, I., Longmore, S., et al

    Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., Longmore, S., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 733, doi: 10.1038/nature08880

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4 12 Tamura et al

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L30

    Takekoshi, T., Tamura, Y., Minamidani, T., et al. 2013, ApJL, 774, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L30

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    G., et al

    Tamura, Y., Saito, T., Tsuru, T. G., et al. 2014, ApJL, 781, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L39

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/121

    Tamura, Y., Kawabe, R., Shimajiri, Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/121

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tamura, Y., Sakai, T., Kawabe, R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13102, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XII, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, 131020G, doi:...

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Taniguchi, A., Bakx, T. J. L. C., Baselmans, J. J. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 209, 278, doi: 10.1007/s10909-022-02888-5

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2010, ApJL, 725, L239, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L239

    Matsumoto, T. 2010, ApJL, 725, L239, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L239

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/6

    Tomida, K., Tomisaka, K., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/6

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

    1977

  59. [67]

    D., Crawford, T

    Vieira, J. D., Crawford, T. M., Switzer, E. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 763, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/763

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Marrone, D

    Vieira, J. D., Marrone, D. P., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 344, doi: 10.1038/nature12001 Weiß, A., Kov´ acs, A., Coppin, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1201, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1201

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Austermann, J

    Wilson, G. W., Austermann, J. E., Perera, T. A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 807, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12980.x

    2008

  62. [70]

    W., Abi-Saad, S., Ade, P., et al

    Wilson, G. W., Abi-Saad, S., Ade, P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11453, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, 1145302, doi...

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2017, A&A, 608, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731391

    Yang, C., Omont, A., Beelen, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731391

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Zhang, Z.-Y., Romano, D., Ivison, R. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., & Matteucci, F. 2018, Nature, 558, 260, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0196-x

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.