Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 101 references

WISDOM project -- XXIII. Star-formation efficiencies of eight early-type galaxies and bulges observed with SITELLE and ALMA

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In eight gas-rich early-type galaxies and bulges, no region within the inner 500 pc is dominated by star-formation ionisation, so Hα traces old stars, not young stars, and star-formation efficiency is suppressed.

desk verdict A solid 100 pc-scale study of eight gas-rich ETGs and bulges; the headline 'no SF-dominated regions' is plausible but rests on WHAN boundaries not independently validated in the ETGs themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17961 v1 pith:7CF3EPXU submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.GA

Anan Lu , Daryl Haggard , Martin Bureau , Jindra Gensior , Carmelle Robert , Thomas G. Williams , Fu-Heng Liang , Woorak Choi
show 13 more authors
Timothy A. Davis Ilaria Ruffa Sara Babic Hope Boyce Michele Cappellari Benjamin Cheung Laurent Drissen Jacob S. Elford Thomas Martin Carter Rhea Laurie Rousseau-Nepton Marc Sarzi Hengyue Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords early-typegalaxiesbulgesstarformationefficiencydepletiontimeBPTdiagramWHANmoleculargasshear
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 combines ~100 pc-resolution maps of warm ionised gas from SITELLE with cold molecular gas maps from ALMA for eight early-type galaxies and spiral bulges. It tries to establish that, despite substantial reservoirs of molecular gas, none of these systems contains a region within the central ~500 pc whose ionisation is dominated by star formation, and that their star-formation efficiencies are suppressed. If correct, this means the usual Hα-based star-formation rates in such galaxies are upper limits, and the quenching mechanism must operate on the efficiency of star formation rather than on the gas supply. The authors further argue that the strong shear produced by the deep, steep potential wells of bulges is an important regulator, at least for half their sample.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the spatially resolved ionisation classification: the BPT diagram ([O III]/Hβ against [N II]/Hα) and the WHAN diagram (Hα equivalent width against [N II]/Hα, which separates star-forming, Seyfert, LINER, retired and passive regions using only the bright lines). These are combined with CO-to-Hα luminosity ratios, converted to molecular gas surface densities and star-formation-rate upper limits to map the depletion time τ_dep = M_mol/SFR, the inverse of the star-formation efficiency. Tilted-ring fits to the ALMA CO cubes provide rotation curves, from which the shear timescale τ_shear and the free-fall timescale τ_ff are computed and compared.

What would settle it

Find a single spaxel within the inner 500 pc of any of these systems whose line ratios fall in the recombination-line star-formation zone of both the BPT and WHAN diagrams; that would directly refute the paper's central claim. Alternatively, measure the CO-to-H2 conversion factor from dust emission or excitation modelling in ETG centres: if it decreases inward by a factor comparable to the reported depletion-time gradient, the central rise vanishes and the shear-based argument must be re-evaluated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using BPT and WHAN emission-line classifications at ~100 pc resolution, the authors find a complete absence of star-formation-dominated regions in all five early-type galaxies and in the inner 500 pc of the three spiral bulges, even though those regions are rich in molecular gas. The ionised gas is instead classified as 'retired' or LINER-like, i.e. ionised by old stellar populations, with any active-galactic-nucleus ionisation confined to the central ~200 pc. Consequently the Hα-derived star-formation rates for the ETGs are upper limits, and the molecular-gas depletion times are lower limits; most ETGs in the sample show depletion times that rise toward the centre. The tight correlation between molecular gas and Hα surface densities in ETGs, and the comparison of shear and free-fall timescales from CO rotation curves, are used to argue that bulge dynamics—especially strong shear—regulates the star-formation efficiency of at least half the sample.

Load-bearing premise

The molecular gas masses, and hence the depletion-time profiles and the inside-out quenching conclusion, assume a single CO-to-H2 conversion factor and fixed CO line ratios; if the conversion factor is lower in the centres of early-type galaxies and bulges, the central rise in depletion time would weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No H II region in any of the eight ETGs and bulges within 500 pc meets the star-formation criteria of either the BPT or the WHAN diagram, so Hα in these central regions is not a star-formation tracer.
  • The lower-limit depletion-time profiles of most ETGs rise toward smaller radii, and the same trend appears in the star-forming regions of the spiral galaxies, pointing to inside-out quenching.
  • ETGs show a tighter molecular gas–Hα correlation than spiral galaxies, suggesting the ionised gas is tied to the old stellar population rather than to recent star formation.
  • In the four ETGs with regularly rotating CO discs, the shear timescale is shorter than the free-fall timescale, indicating that shear from the bulge potential is the dominant gas regulator there.
  • Because AGN and stellar feedback show no clear signs of suppressing star formation in these systems, bulge-potential shear is left as the mechanism most consistent with the observed suppression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the CO-to-H2 conversion factor declines toward the centres of ETGs as it does in some disc galaxies, the central rise in depletion time would weaken or vanish; the absence of star-formation-dominated regions would persist, but the case for inside-out quenching would need the X_CO profile to be measured.
  • The success of the WHAN diagram at 100 pc suggests it could become a workhorse for resolved ionisation studies in quiescent galaxies, since it requires only Hα and [N II], the lines least affected by continuum subtraction.
  • The shear mechanism predicts a correlation between rotation-curve steepness and depletion time, which could be tested with a larger sample selected by the shape of the central rotation curve.
  • If Hα is powered mostly by old stars rather than young stars, high-resolution radio or FUV imaging might reveal small, embedded star-forming clumps that produce no detectable H II regions; such a finding would require softening the quenching narrative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper combines SITELLE optical IFU spectroscopy and ALMA CO(2-1)/CO(3-2) mapping for eight early-type galaxies and spiral bulges at ~100 pc resolution, with the aim of measuring resolved star-formation efficiencies and identifying the mechanisms that suppress star formation. Using BPT and WHAN emission-line classifications, the authors report a complete absence of SF-dominated regions in all ETGs and bulges, with ionised gas attributed mainly to old stellar populations and, in the innermost few hundred parsecs, to AGN/LINER activity. They construct sigma_SFR-sigma_mol relations and radial depletion-time profiles, labelling SFRs as upper limits for ETGs and bulges, and compare shear and free-fall timescales in four regularly rotating CO discs to argue that bulge dynamics and shear regulate star formation in at least half the sample. They also discuss AGN feedback, stellar feedback, and galaxy interactions, and close with a call for better SFR tracers and CO-to-H2 conversion factors in ETGs.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable observational step: at ~100 pc resolution, gas-rich spheroids show no region where star formation dominates the ionisation, despite abundant molecular gas, strengthening the case that dynamical mechanisms rather than gas depletion quench star formation in these systems. The paper is careful in several respects: the continuum subtraction with pPXF is documented, the ORCS and LUCI extractions are cross-checked, depletion times are consistently reported as lower or upper limits, and the X_CO dependence is acknowledged in Section 4.2.3. The shear analysis is simple but clearly presented, and the data products are made available. The qualitative picture is likely robust, but the strongest specific claim - the complete absence of SF-dominated regions - rests on a novel application of WHAN boundaries that is not independently validated in exactly the objects where the claim is made.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.1 (Fig. 2), Conclusions (i)] The claim that no SF-dominated region exists in any ETG or bulge, which appears in the abstract and as Conclusion (i), depends almost entirely on the WHAN diagram. As the paper states, the BPT diagram does not provide a robust classification in the ETGs because most spaxels have only upper limits on H-beta and [O III] (the grey points in Fig. 2). The WHAN boundaries of Cid Fernandes et al. (2011) were calibrated on kpc-scale SDSS fibre data, and the validation against BPT in this paper is effective only for the three spiral galaxies, where BPT classifications are reliable. In the ETGs, the strong old-stellar continuum dilutes W_Halpha, and diffuse ionised gas can changes the [N II]/Halpha ratio; a genuine embedded SF region could therefore be classified as 'retired'. Indeed, the authors themselves note that WHAN classifies some spiral-arm regions as Seyfert because of diffuse ionised gas, showing that the diagnostic is sensitive to diffuse emission. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim. I request either a softened formulation ('no region is classified as SF-dominated under the WHAN classification') with the calibration caveat stated prominently, or additional validation at ~100 pc using an independent SF tracer (e.g., resolved FUV or radio continuum, or a stacking analysis) and a quantitative estimate of how much W_Halpha dilution would be needed to hide a genuine SF region in these old stellar populations.
  2. [4.2.3, Conclusions (iv), Eq. (2)] The radial depletion-time profiles and the inference of inside-out quenching in Conclusion (iv) are built on Eq. (2) with a fixed X_CO = 2.3e20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1 and fixed CO line ratios. Section 4.2.3 acknowledges that spatially resolved studies of nearby galaxies find smaller X_CO in galaxy centres than in discs, and that such a radial dependence 'could therefore (at least partially) explain the observed trend of increasing tau_dep with decreasing galactocentric radius'. This caveat is in tension with the unqualified statement in Conclusion (iv) that the radial profiles 'suggest inside-out quenching'. Please propagate a plausible radial X_CO uncertainty into the tau_dep profiles (e.g., using the range of central-disc contrasts reported by Sandstrom et al. 2013 and Teng et al. 2022) and test whether the inward increase survives, or explicitly present the trend as conditional on a constant X_CO. In addition, the fixed CO(2-1)/(1-0) ratio of 0.8 may be inappropriate for the radio galaxies NGC 383 and NGC 708; the authors note that Ruffa et al. (2019) adopt 2.3 for radio galaxies, and this systematic uncertainty should be quantified for those objects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.3] For spaxels without a 3-sigma H-beta detection, the extinction correction adopts the H-alpha extinction of the nearest reliable spaxel; a short discussion of the resulting spatially correlated systematic uncertainty on the radial profiles would be helpful.
  2. [3.1] The agreement between WHAN and BPT classifications in the spiral galaxies is described only qualitatively; an overlap fraction or confusion matrix would strengthen the claimed validation of WHAN at 100 pc scales.
  3. [3.3] The radial profiles use annuli of 200 pc width with a step of 100 pc, so adjacent data points are not independent; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [4.1 (Fig. 5)] The shear-vs-free-fall comparison adopts a fixed scale height H = 100 pc; a sentence on how the tau_shear/tau_ff ratio changes for plausible H values (e.g., 50-200 pc) would make Conclusion (v) easier to assess.
  5. [Throughout] There are a few typographical errors, e.g., 'neglegible' in Section 4.1 and 'thethe high-altitude plateau' in the Acknowledgements; please proofread the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SF-suppression result is a direct observational classification and ratio measurement, not a fitted or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from direct observational quantities with externally calibrated conversion factors and classification boundaries, not from parameters fitted to the same data. The absence of SF-dominated regions follows from applying the BPT boundaries of Kewley et al. (2006) and the WHAN boundaries of Cid Fernandes et al. (2011) to measured emission-line fluxes; these boundaries are external to the paper and are not tuned to produce the result. The depletion-time lower limits are computed as L_CO(1-0)/L_Halpha ratios converted with fixed X_CO = 2.3e20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1 and the Kennicutt & Evans (2012) Halpha-to-SFR calibration (Eqs. 1, 2, 6), and the paper explicitly labels them as lower limits because Halpha includes non-SF ionisation, which is conservative rather than circular. The shear timescale comparison uses measured rotation curves (3DBarolo) and azimuthally averaged gas surface densities with an adopted scale height H = 100 pc (Eqs. 7-8), again an interpretation of independent kinematic data. Self-citations to WISDOM papers provide data products, stellar masses, black-hole masses, and prior individual-galaxy analyses, but no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged novelty of applying WHAN at 100 pc ('its application to 100 pc-scale data is novel') is a calibration-robustness concern, and the paper attempts an explicit BPT cross-check for galaxies where BPT is reliable; this is a validity caveat, not a circular reduction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

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

The quantitative results depend on adopted conversion factors (X_CO, CO line ratios, SFR calibration) and an assumed gas scale height. These are standard external calibrations rather than parameters fitted in this paper, but they introduce systematic uncertainty that is acknowledged in Section 4.2.

free parameters (3)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor X_CO = 2.3 x 10^20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1
    Adopted Milky Way value with helium contribution, used in Eq. (2) to convert CO luminosity to molecular gas mass. Affects all molecular gas masses and depletion times. Discussed in Section 4.2.3.
  • CO line ratios = R21 = 0.8, R32 = 1.06
    Adopted to convert CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) luminosities to CO(1-0) in Eq. (2). Affects all molecular gas masses and is noted to depend on optical depth and excitation conditions.
  • Gas layer thickness H = 100 pc
    Adopted for all galaxies when computing the free-fall timescale tau_ff in Eq. (8). The shear versus free-fall comparison in Section 4.1.1 depends on this choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption X_CO and CO line ratios are constant across the sample and equal to Milky Way or spiral galaxy values.
    Section 2.2. If X_CO varies with radius or environment, especially in ETG centres, the molecular gas masses and depletion time profiles could change substantially, as acknowledged in Section 4.2.3.
  • domain assumption WHAN classification boundaries derived from kpc-scale SDSS data apply at approximately 100 pc scale.
    Section 3.1. The authors verify agreement with BPT for spiral galaxies, but for ETGs the BPT is not robust because H-beta and [O III] are faint, so the ETG classifications rely on this transferability.
  • domain assumption H-alpha emission traces star formation through the Kennicutt and Evans (2012) relation at the spatial scales used.
    Section 2.3. The authors note the relation can break down below about 500 pc and therefore treat ETG SFRs as upper limits, making the depletion times lower limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WISDOM project -- XXIII. Star-formation efficiencies of eight early-type galaxies and bulges observed with SITELLE and ALMA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CF3EPXU

@misc{pith2026250417961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WISDOM project -- XXIII. Star-formation efficiencies of eight early-type galaxies and bulges observed with SITELLE and ALMA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CF3EPXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17961}
}
read the original abstract

Early-type galaxies (ETGs) are known to harbour dense spheroids of stars with scarce star formation (SF). Approximately a quarter of these galaxies have rich molecular gas reservoirs yet do not form stars efficiently. These gas-rich ETGs have properties similar to those of bulges at the centres of spiral galaxies. We use spatially-resolved observations (~ 100 pc resolution) of warm ionised-gas emission lines (Hbeta, [O III], [N II], Halpha and [S II]) from the imaging Fourier transform spectrograph SITELLE at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and cold molecular gas (12CO(2-1) or 12CO(3-2)) from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to study the SF properties of 8 ETGs and bulges. We use the ionised-gas emission lines to classify the ionisation mechanisms and demonstrate a complete absence of regions dominated by SF ionisation in these ETGs and bulges, despite abundant cold molecular gas. The ionisation classifications also show that our ETGs and bulges are dominated by old stellar populations. We use the molecular gas surface densities and Halpha-derived SF rates (in spiral galaxies outside of the bulges) or upper limits (in ETGs and bulges) to constrain the depletion times (inverse of the SF efficiencies), suggesting again suppressed SF in our ETGs and bulges. Finally, we use the molecular gas velocity fields to measure the gas kinematics, and show that bulge dynamics, particularly the strong shear due to the deep and steep gravitational potential wells, is an important SF-regulation mechanism for at least half of our sample galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Maps of NGC 383, NGC 524, NGC 708 and NGC 3169. From left to right: H𝛼 surface brightness map, derived from our SITELLE observations (see Section 2.3 for details), H𝛼 luminosity-weighted mean line-of-sight velocity map (measured with respect to the systemic velocity of each galaxy listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. (continued) Maps of NGC 4429, NGC 4435, NGC 4438 and NGC 4501. – 5120 Å) at a mean spectral resolution 𝑅 ≈ 1000. These data were taken between 2020 and 2024 as part a number of programmes: 20BC09 (PI: Boyce), 20BC25 (PI: Boyce), 22BC99 (PI: Boyce), 23AC06 (PI: Lu) and 24AC18 (PI: Lu). The data reduction was performed with the ORBS software devel￾oped for SITELLE (Martin et al. 2015a, 2021). The seeing (full-width at… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top row: ionisation-mechanism classification using emission-line ratios. Left: BPT diagram, classifying the ionisation based on the line ratios [N ii]/H𝛼 and [O iii]/H𝛽 (Baldwin et al. 1981). Data points from the spaxels of each galaxy with all four emission-line integrated fluxes having 𝑆/𝑁 ≥ 3 are colour coded. Grey data points indicate spaxels for which one of the emission lines in either [N ii]/H𝛼 or [O iii]/H𝛽 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Σ𝐿H𝛼 (ΣSFR) – Σmol relations of the individual spaxels of our sample ETGs and bulges. (a)-(b) All H𝛼 emission (converted to SFRs), irrespective of the ionisation mechanism. The measured (extinction-corrected) H𝛼 luminosity surface density of each spaxel is shown on…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝐿CO(1−0) /𝐿H𝛼 (i.e. depletion times) as a function of galactocentric distance (see Section 3.3 for details). The 𝐿CO(1−0) /𝐿H𝛼 ratios are measured within annuli of 200 pc width centred on each galaxy centre, with a step size of 100 pc, by taking the ratio of the sum of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: rotation velocities (𝑉rot) of our sample galaxies as a function of galactocentric radius. The rotation velocities were derived from our ALMA CO data cubes using 3DBarolo. Right: Comparison of the shear and free-fall timescales of our four galaxies with regularly-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  2. [3]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..26B 659, A26

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141859 2022

  3. [4]

    D., 2008, , 136, 2846

    Bigiel F., Leroy A., Walter F., Brinks E., De Blok W., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, , 136, 2846

    2008

  4. [5]

    D., Wolfire M., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 207

    2013

  5. [6]

    A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Robinson A., Schnorr M \"u ller A., Lena D., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3405

    Brum C., Riffel R. A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Robinson A., Schnorr M \"u ller A., Lena D., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3405

    2017

  6. [7]

    J., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Byler N., Dalcanton J. J., Conroy C., Johnson B. D., Choi J., Dotter A., Rosenfield P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158....2B 158, 2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b70 2019

  7. [8]

    Cappellari M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3273C 526, 3273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2597 2023

  8. [9]

    R., McLeod A

    Chevance M., Krumholz M. R., McLeod A. F., Ostriker E. C., Rosolowsky E. W., Sternberg A., 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09570

    arXiv 2022

Show all 101 references
  1. [10]

    S., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., Schoenell W., Sodr \'e L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1036C 403, 1036

    Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Schlickmann M. S., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., Schoenell W., Sodr \'e L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1036C 403, 1036

    2010

  2. [13]

    M., Dalla Bont \`a E., Bertola F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09901.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366.1050C 366, 1050

    Coccato L., Sarzi M., Pizzella A., Corsini E. M., Dalla Bont \`a E., Bertola F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09901.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366.1050C 366, 1050

    2006

  3. [14]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3427D 444, 3427

    Davis T. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3427D 444, 3427

    2014 doi

  4. [15]

    L., Graham A

    Davis B. L., Graham A. W., Seigar M. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2187D 471, 2187

    2017 doi

  5. [16]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3818D 473, 3818

    Davis T. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3818D 473, 3818

    2018 doi

  6. [17]

    A., Greene J

    Davis T. A., Greene J. E., Ma C.-P., Blakeslee J. P., Dawson J. M., Pandya V., Veale M., Zabel N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1404D 486, 1404

    2019 doi

  7. [18]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1522D 512, 1522

    Davis T. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1522D 512, 1522

    2022 doi

  8. [19]

    Decarli R., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 69

    2016

  9. [20]

    Dimauro P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..256D 513, 256

    2022 doi

  10. [21]

    Y., De Robertis M

    Dong X. Y., De Robertis M. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1236D 131, 1236

    2006 doi

  11. [22]

    Drissen L., et al., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 3930

    2019

  12. [23]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..319E 528, 319

    Elford J. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..319E 528, 319

    2024 doi

  13. [24]

    L., Lin L., Thorp M

    Ellison S. L., Lin L., Thorp M. D., Pan H.-A., Scudder J. M., S \'a nchez S. F., Bluck A. F. L., Maiolino R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4777E 501, 4777

    2021 doi

  14. [25]

    Ferreras I., Wyse R. F. G., Silk J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07056.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1381F 345, 1381

    2003

  15. [26]

    L., 1986, The Astronomical Journal, 92, 1068

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1986, The Astronomical Journal, 92, 1068

    1986

  16. [27]

    J., Popescu C

    Flores-Fajardo N., Morisset C., Stasi \'n ska G., Binette L., 2012, in Tuffs R. J., Popescu C. C., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 284, The Spectral Energy Distribution of Galaxies - SED 2011. pp 132--134, @doi 10.1017/S1743921312008903

    2012 doi

  17. [28]

    Gao Y., Egusa F., Liu G., Kohno K., Bao M., Morokuma-Matsui K., Kong X., Chen X., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 139

    2021

  18. [29]

    Gensior J., Kruijssen J. M. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2000G 500, 2000

    2021 doi

  19. [30]

    Gensior J., Kruijssen J. M. D., Keller B. W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..199G 495, 199

    2020 doi

  20. [31]

    A., Bureau M., Kruijssen J

    Gensior J., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Kruijssen J. M. D., Cappellari M., Ruffa I., Williams T. G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5590G 526, 5590

    2023 doi

  21. [32]

    A., Anderson M

    Greene O. A., Anderson M. R., Marinelli M., Holley-Bockelmann K., Liu C., 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235. p. 258.02

    2020

  22. [33]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..583H 53, 583

    Heyer M., Dame T. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..583H 53, 583

    2015 doi

  23. [35]

    J., Irwin J

    Hota A., Saikia D. J., Irwin J. A., 2007b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12114.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380.1009H 380, 1009

    2007

  24. [36]

    Hughes A., et al., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 44

    2013

  25. [37]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...54K 341, 54

    2003

  26. [38]

    C., 1998, The astrophysical journal, 498, 541

    Kennicutt R. C., 1998, The astrophysical journal, 498, 541

    1998

  27. [39]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 531

    2012

  28. [40]

    J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 961

    Kewley L. J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 961

    2006

  29. [41]

    Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., Elmegreen B. G., Murray N., Bally J., Testi L., Kennicutt R. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3370K 440, 3370

    2014 doi

  30. [42]

    Kruijssen J. M. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.569..519K 569, 519

    2019 doi

  31. [43]

    A., Bridle A

    Laing R. A., Bridle A. H., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05873.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1161L 336, 1161

    2002

  32. [44]

    Lamperti I., et al., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 103

    2020

  33. [45]

    Lang P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..122L 897, 122

    2020 doi

  34. [46]

    A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Liu L., Ruffa I., Smith M

    Lelli F., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Liu L., Ruffa I., Smith M. D., Williams T. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2493 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4066L 516, 4066

    2022 doi

  35. [47]

    K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W

    Leroy A. K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2782L 136, 2782

    2008 doi

  36. [48]

    Li J.-T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.2483L 515, 2483

    2022 doi

  37. [49]

    Lin L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abba3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..145L 903, 145

    2020 doi

  38. [50]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A2

    2018

  39. [51]

    A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4048L 505, 4048

    Liu L., Bureau M., Blitz L., Davis T. A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4048L 505, 4048

    2021 doi

  40. [52]

    Lu A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5035L 514, 5035

    2022 doi

  41. [53]

    Lu A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3888L 531, 3888

    2024 doi

  42. [54]

    E., Jones C., Forman W

    Machacek M. E., Jones C., Forman W. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..183M 610, 183

    2004 doi

  43. [55]

    Man A., Belli S., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0558-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..695M 2, 695

    2018 doi

  44. [56]

    Martin T., Drissen L., Joncas G., 2015a, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems, 24, 327

  45. [57]

    R., Rosolowsky E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Martin T., Drissen L., Joncas G., 2015b, in Taylor A. R., Rosolowsky E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 495, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV). p. 327

  46. [58]

    B., Prunet S., Drissen L., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4223

    Martin T. B., Prunet S., Drissen L., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4223

    2016

  47. [59]

    Martin T., Drissen L., Prunet S., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5514

    2021

  48. [60]

    F., Ostriker E

    McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..565M 45, 565

    2007 arXiv

  49. [61]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  50. [62]

    Mezcua M., Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5252M 528, 5252

    2024 doi

  51. [63]

    R., Moll \'a M., Galbany L., V \' lchez J., Carnero A., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1281

    Moreno-Raya M., L \'o pez-S \'a nchez \'A . R., Moll \'a M., Galbany L., V \' lchez J., Carnero A., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1281

    2016

  52. [64]

    Morganti R., 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42

    2017

  53. [65]

    M., Falcke H., Wilson A

    Nagar N. M., Falcke H., Wilson A. S., 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 521

    2005

  54. [66]

    J., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 817, L9

    Nelson E. J., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 817, L9

    2016

  55. [67]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..319N 490, 319

    North E. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..319N 490, 319

    2019 doi

  56. [68]

    V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5179N 503, 5179

    North E. V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab793 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5179N 503, 5179

    2021 doi

  57. [69]

    Nyland K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2221N 458, 2221

    2016 doi

  58. [70]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics Of Gas Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei. University science books

    2006

  59. [71]

    H., Jeong H., Jeong W.-S., 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 109

    Pak M., Lee J. H., Jeong H., Jeong W.-S., 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 109

    2023

  60. [72]

    Pan H.-A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad28c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964..120P 964, 120

    2024 doi

  61. [73]

    427, Accretion and Ejection in AGN: a Global View

    Panessa F., Giroletti M., 2010, in Maraschi L., Ghisellini G., Della Ceca R., Tavecchio F., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 427, Accretion and Ejection in AGN: a Global View. p. 377

    2010

  62. [74]

    Panuzzo P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...656..206P 656, 206

    2007 doi

  63. [75]

    Pessa I., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.134P 650, A134

    2021 doi

  64. [76]

    Pety J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...43P 779, 43

    2013 doi

  65. [77]

    Repetto P., Fa \'u ndez-Abans M., Freitas-Lemes P., Rodrigues I., de Oliveira-Abans M., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 293

    2017

  66. [78]

    Rhea C., Hlavacek-Larrondo J., Rousseau-Nepton L., Vigneron B., Guit \'e L.-S., 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 208

    2021

  67. [79]

    A., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12040036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...36R 12, 36

    Ruffa I., Davis T. A., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12040036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...36R 12, 36

    2024 doi

  68. [80]

    Ruffa I., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4239R 484, 4239

    2019 doi

  69. [81]

    A., Prandoni I., Paladino R., Parma P., Davis T

    Ruffa I., Laing R. A., Prandoni I., Paladino R., Parma P., Davis T. A., Bureau M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5719R 499, 5719

    2020 doi

  70. [82]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778....2S 778, 2

    2013 doi

  71. [83]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..703S 371, 703

    2006

  72. [84]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777....5S 777, 5

    Sandstrom K. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777....5S 777, 5

    2013 doi

  73. [85]

    K., Walter F., Sandstrom K., Rosolowsky E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1699S 722, 1699

    Schruba A., Leroy A. K., Walter F., Sandstrom K., Rosolowsky E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1699S 722, 1699

    2010 doi

  74. [86]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4359S 485, 4359

    Smith M. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4359S 485, 4359

    2019 doi

  75. [87]

    Steer I., et al., 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 37

    2016

  76. [88]

    L., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.03423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240203423S p

    Steinhardt C. L., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.03423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240203423S p. arXiv:2402.03423

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [89]

    Strong A., et al., 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 207, 1

    1988

  78. [90]

    Sun J., et al., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 172

    2018

  79. [91]

    Teng Y.-H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac382f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...72T 925, 72

    2022 doi

  80. [92]

    D., Fraternali F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 3021

    Teodoro E. D., Fraternali F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 3021

    2015

  81. [93]

    Utomo D., Blitz L., Davis T., Rosolowsky E., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Sarzi M., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 16

    2015

  82. [94]

    Vazdekis A., Koleva M., Ricciardelli E., R \"o ck B., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3409V 463, 3409

    2016 doi

  83. [95]

    Venturi G., et al., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 648, A17

    2021

  84. [96]

    Villanueva V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...60V 923, 60

    2021 doi

  85. [97]

    Vollmer B., Soida M., Chung A., Chemin L., Braine J., Boselli A., Beck R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..669V 496, 669

    2009 doi

  86. [98]

    M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..530W 579, 530

    Woo J.-H., Urry C. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..530W 579, 530

    2002 doi

  87. [99]

    K., Lee J., Sheen Y.-K., Jeong H., Suh H., Oh K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...22Y 195, 22

    Yi S. K., Lee J., Sheen Y.-K., Jeong H., Suh H., Oh K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...22Y 195, 22

    2011 doi

  88. [100]

    J., Rosolowsky E., van der Hulst J

    Yim K., Wong T., Xue R., Rand R. J., Rosolowsky E., van der Hulst J. M., Benjamin R., Murphy E. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148..127Y 148, 127

    2014 doi

  89. [101]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  90. [102]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18561.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..940Y 414, 940

    Young L. M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18561.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..940Y 414, 940

    2011

  91. [103]

    Zabel N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.2155Z 496, 2155

    2020 doi

  92. [104]

    Zhang H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp...59Z

    2025 doi

  93. [105]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.