Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Molecular gas excitation and outflow properties of obscured quasars at z$\sim$0.1

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 six obscured quasars, molecular outflows show CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) ratios above one and energetics pointing to compact jets rather than radiation alone.

desk verdict Solid new dataset and careful kinematics, but the jet-driven outflow claim leans on unresolved radio emission and a non-significant correlation — worth publishing after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02759 v1 pith:PDXS4NRB submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.GA

A. Audibert , C. Ramos Almeida , S. García-Burillo , G. Speranza , I. Lamperti , M. Pereira-Santaella , F. Panessa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:activekinematicsanddynamicsjetsISM:outflowsmoleculargasAGNfeedbackCOlineratiosradio-quietquasars
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 argues that in six luminous but radio-quiet obscured quasars, the cold molecular gas moving out of the central kiloparsec is not merely fast gas: it is gas in a distinct physical state. Pixels where the kinematic model finds non-rotational, high-velocity gas show CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) brightness-temperature ratios $R_{32}\gtrsim 1$, while the surrounding rotating disks sit at $R_{32}\sim 0.3$-$0.7$. That contrast is read as hotter, optically thinner outflowing gas, and it allows the outflows to be located without relying on kinematics alone. The measured outflow rates, $5 \lesssim \dot{M}_{out} \lesssim 150\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, lie well below what AGN-luminosity scaling relations predict, and the outflow kinetic power corresponds to only $\sim10^{-6}$-$10^{-4}$ of bolometric luminosity but $\sim0.1$-$3.5\%$ of the estimated jet power. The authors conclude that compact low-power jets, which are common even in radio-quiet quasars, may be the main drivers of these molecular outflows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the spatially resolved brightness-temperature ratio $R_{32}=L'_{CO(3-2)}/L'_{CO(2-1)}$, measured pixel by pixel after convolving the two CO datacubes to a common beam. Its value depends on gas excitation temperature and optical depth, so $R_{32}>1$ flags gas that is warmer and/or optically thin compared with the disk, which shows $R_{32}\sim 0.3$-$0.7$. The ratio is combined with a three-dimensional tilted-ring kinematic model of the rotating disk: subtracting the model isolates high-velocity non-circular gas, and overlaying the two maps shows that the outflow is co-spatial with the high-$R_{32}$ regions, establishing the excitation contrast as an outflow tracer.

What would settle it

Very-long-baseline interferometric imaging of the five quasars whose nuclear radio continuum is unresolved would settle the identification: if the compact emission does not show collimated, jet-like structure in most of them, the jet-power coupling efficiencies rest on a false premise, whereas resolved jets would support the paper's interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a spatial coincidence with a physical interpretation: in the five quasars with both CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) detections, the gas that cannot be explained by a rotating disk model has line ratios $R_{32}\approx 1$-$2$, higher than the disk values of $\approx 0.3$-$0.7$, and the high-ratio regions coincide with the high-velocity outflowing gas. The paper's outflow rates in three scenarios span $5$-$150\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, far below the $\gtrsim 100\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ expected from the quasars' bolometric luminosities of $10^{45.5}$-$10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$. The kinetic powers imply radiative coupling efficiencies $10^{-6}<\epsilon_{AGN}<10^{-4}$ and jet coupling efficiencies $0.001<\epsilon_{jet}<0.035$, with a regression of the six sources tracking $\epsilon_{jet}\sim 0.1\%$. This is evidence that compact, low-power jets can disturb and expel the cold molecular gas even in radio-quiet AGN, and that warm and cold molecular phases trace the same outflow while the ionized phase does not.

Load-bearing premise

The jet-driving conclusion assumes that the unresolved nuclear radio emission in five of the six quasars is a small-scale jet and that its 1.4 GHz luminosity can be converted into jet power $P_{jet}$ with a cavity-based scaling relation; if that radio emission is instead produced by outflow-driven shocks, the derived $P_{jet}$ and $\epsilon_{jet}$ values would be invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AGN luminosity alone is not a sufficient predictor of outflow power: the measured rates fall well below the empirical $\dot{M}_{out}$-$L_{bol}$ relation, so that relation should be treated as an upper envelope rather than a typical trend.
  • Spatially resolved CO line-ratio mapping reveals feedback that integrated fluxes hide, since global $R_{32}\sim0.5$ resembles normal disks while outflow pixels reach $R_{32}\sim1$-$2$.
  • Compact jets in radio-quiet quasars may be as important as radiation pressure for AGN feedback, extending the jet-driven feedback channel to the majority of the AGN population.
  • Warm and cold molecular gas phases trace the same outflow, with the cold phase carrying nearly all the mass, while the ionized gas is a separate structure with different orientation, velocity, and radius; multi-phase outflow models should treat the phases distinctly.
  • Mass loading factors above unity in two of the six sources show that these outflows can remove molecular gas faster than star formation consumes it, at least in those cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If jet coupling near $0.1\%$ is typical for radio-quiet quasars, galaxy-formation simulations may need to include compact jets even at high accretion rates, where radiative feedback is usually assumed to dominate.
  • The $R_{32}>1$ outflow signature could be used at higher redshift or in fainter sources where kinematic modelling is impossible; a single high-resolution line-ratio map plus high-velocity line wings would identify feedback-affected gas.
  • With only two CO transitions, the excitation contrast is degenerate between temperature, density, and optical depth; adding CO(1-0) or CO(4-3) data over the same pixels would discriminate shock heating from X-ray heating and test the jet-shock interpretation.
  • The low outflow rates relative to luminosity scaling relations may mean these quasars are observed between episodic feedback peaks; cumulative energy injection over duty cycles, rather than instantaneous mass-outflow rate, may be the quantity that regulates star formation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) observations of six type-2 quasars at z~0.1 from the QSOFEED sample, together with re-analysis of existing CO(2-1) data. The authors produce spatially resolved R32 = L_CO(3-2)'/L_CO(2-1)' maps, fit rotating-disk models with 3DBAROLO, and identify high-velocity gas as molecular outflows. They report outflow rates under three scenarios (5 to 150 M_sun/yr), kinetic powers, radiative and jet coupling efficiencies, compare the orientation of CO, H2, and [OIII] outflows, and discuss gas excitation in outflow versus disk regions. The central claims are that outflows are co-spatial with R32>1 regions, that the outflow energetics favor compact jets as a driver in these radio-quiet quasars (epsilon_jet ~ 0.1-3.5%), and that warm and cold molecular gas trace the same outflow while the ionized phase does not.

Significance. The paper provides a useful, multi-scenario accounting of molecular outflow properties in a well-defined sample of obscured quasars, extending the single-object Teacup analysis to five additional objects. Its strengths include the transparent presentation of three outflow scenarios, the public reuse of ALMA and VLA data, and explicit acknowledgement of many systematic uncertainties (alpha_CO, outflow angle, single-line-ratio excitation diagnostics). Spatially resolved R32 maps combined with kinematic modeling are a valuable contribution to the still-small census of molecular gas excitation in quasars. However, the abstract and conclusions state the excitation-outflow connection and the jet-driving interpretation more strongly than the evidence supports, for reasons detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.4 and Abstract] Section 3.4 defines outflowing gas as regions that show both high-velocity non-rotational components and gas excitation differing from ambient disk conditions, explicitly 'the same outflow definition employed in Ramos Almeida et al. (2022), but adding gas excitation.' The abstract's statement that molecular outflows are co-spatial with R32>1 regions is therefore partly built into the outflow definition rather than being an independent empirical result. The kinematic residuals from 3DBAROLO and the high-velocity channel maps in scenario ii are independent of excitation, but the paper should separate the kinematic selection from the excitation measurement, present the R32 distribution of purely kinematically selected outflow pixels, and quantify how much of the co-spatiality is by construction. The case of J1010, where R32>1 is found across the entire minor- and major-axis PVDs for both low- and high-velocity gas, further weakens a sample-wide co-spatiality claim.
  2. [4.1, Table 4, Table 5] The conclusion that compact jets drive the molecular outflows rests on jet powers Pjet computed from unresolved 1.4 GHz radio fluxes using the cavity-based Bîrzan et al. (2008) scaling relation. As the authors note, a jet-like morphology is resolved only for J1430 (and for J1347 via VLBI); for the other four QSO2s the radio emission is unresolved and classified only as 'jet/lobe/wind'. If the radio continuum is produced by outflow-driven shocks or star formation, the Pjet values in Table 4 and hence the derived epsilon_jet range (0.001-0.035) are not valid jet powers. This concern is compounded by Table 5, where the QSOFEED-only Eout-Pjet regression is not statistically significant (r=0.48, p=0.33); the statement that the six QSO2s 'follow the locus of epsilon_jet~0.1%' is therefore a consequence of the assumed Pjet normalization rather than an independent trend. The manuscript should either present epsilon_jet as explicitly conditional on the Pjet assumption and soften the jet-driving conclusion, or provide a test that does not rely on the Bîrzan scaling (e.g., using L1.4GHz directly).
  3. [Figure 12, Section 4.3] The quantitative comparison of R32 in outflow versus disk regions uses the same velocity cut vout from the 3DBAROLO model and the same excitation-inclusive outflow definition criticized above, and it is restricted to minor-axis slits. Moreover, the enhancement is not uniform: J1010 shows R32>1 throughout the PVDs, and for J1430 the entire disk has elevated R32, as stated in Sections 3.4 and 4.3. The claim in Section 4.3 that outflow regions reach R32~1-2 while rotating disk regions have R32~0.3-0.7 should therefore be presented as object-dependent rather than a sample-wide result, and the histogram analysis should be redone with a purely kinematic selection if it is meant to support co-spatiality.
  4. [Abstract vs Section 4.3] The abstract states that R32>1 in the outflows indicates 'enhanced temperature relative to the discs and the presence of optically thin gas,' but Section 4.3 states 'we are unable to infer the physical conditions (Tex and density) of the gas using only one molecular line ratio, since more transitions... would be necessary,' and the Conclusions merely say higher excitation or optically thin gas. The definitive physical interpretation in the abstract is not supported by the single R32 ratio; the paper should either qualify the abstract or add a radiative-transfer argument for why the two interpretations can be separated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, the jet coupling efficiency range is printed as '10^{-3}<epsilon_AGN<10^{-2}' immediately after defining epsilon_jet; this should be epsilon_jet.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to 'values are listed in Table 4.2'; the jet position angles are listed in Table 6, not Table 4.2. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Table 4 notes] In the Table 4 notes, 'For J1509, MH2=17.6±7.4 M⊙ (RA22)' appears to lack the 10^9 factor used elsewhere; Table 3 lists molecular masses in units of 10^9 M⊙, so the note should read '17.6±7.4 × 10^9 M⊙' for consistency.
  4. [Section 3.5] The sentence 'we just integrated the emission from the 3DBAROLO model and subtracted it from the CO(2-1) datacube' could be clearer; 'just' should be removed and the procedure described as integrating the model and subtracting it to obtain residual emission.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The claim that molecular outflows are co-spatial with R32>1 regions is partly self-definitional, since the outflow definition in Sec. 3.4 already requires elevated gas excitation; kinematics and energetics remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4 (Modelling the kinematics of the molecular gas), outflow definition; echoed in Abstract and Section 4.3.]
    "The regions of the QSO2s where we detected high velocity gas components and gas excitation differing from ambient gas conditions in the main disks are interpreted as outflowing gas. This interpretation is based on the fact that their kinematics cannot be explained by regular rotation, based on our analysis using 3DBAROLO, and they show higher excitation temperatures than those typically found in the galaxy disks of non-active star-forming galaxies. We note that this is the same outflow definition employed in Ramos Almeida et al. (2022), but adding gas excitation."

    The paper defines outflowing gas as high-velocity gas that also shows 'gas excitation differing from ambient gas conditions,' and R32 is the paper's excitation diagnostic. The headline result that 'molecular outflows are co-spatial with regions with R32>1' is therefore partly true by construction: an outflow region cannot enter the sample unless it already displays excitation differences, and for J1356 the scenario-ii selection explicitly requires the high-velocity gas to correspond to the region with high values of R32. The kinematic non-rotation requirement from 3DBAROLO is an independent input, so the circularity is only partial; the energetics and the comparison with disk R32 values are not forced.

full rationale

The central kinematic result (non-circular high-velocity gas identified via 3DBAROLO modeling and residual subtraction) and the outflow energetics (Mout, Edot, epsilon_AGN) are independent, data-driven measurements. The jet-coupling comparison uses the external Bîrzan et al. (2008) L1.4GHz-Pjet relation; the caveat that only J1430 shows a resolved jet-like morphology in the HR VLA data is an acknowledged correctness risk about interpreting unresolved radio emission as jets, not a circular step. R32 values are also compared against external samples (Leroy et al. 2022; Molyneux et al. 2024). The main partial circularity is the outflow definition: because elevated gas excitation is part of the definition, the reported co-spatiality between outflows and R32>1 (Abstract, Fig. 12, Sec. 4.3) is partly built in. This warrants a moderate score (4), not a higher one, since the kinematic criterion is independent and the energetics conclusions do not reduce to the R32 definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard conversion factors and geometry choices, plus external scaling relations for Lbol and Pjet. The largest free choices are the outflow velocity cuts and the alpha_CO value; these dominate the order-of-magnitude spread in outflow rates.

free parameters (3)
  • Outflow velocity cuts (v_out) = 50-400 km/s depending on galaxy and scenario
    Chosen by hand from PVDs and the 3DBAROLO rotation model; directly sets M_dot_out and E_dot_out in Table 4.
  • alpha_CO for outflow gas = 0.8 Msun (K km/s pc2)^-1
    Adopted from RA22 for all outflow masses; a factor of 5 lower than the Galactic value used for total masses, so the quoted outflow mass fractions and rates are sensitive to this choice.
  • Assumed CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ratio R12 = 1
    Used to convert outflow CO(2-1) fluxes to masses under the thermalised optically thick assumption; if R12<1, outflow masses would be higher.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CO-to-H2 conversion factors alpha_CO=4.36 (Galactic) and 0.8 (outflows/ULIRG) and R31=R21=1 (thermalised gas) convert observed CO luminosities to molecular masses.
    Section 3.2 and Table 3; uncertainty in alpha_CO is acknowledged and propagated.
  • domain assumption Thin-shell geometry for outflow mass rate: M_dot_out = M_out * v_out / r_out (Rupke et al. 2005).
    Section 3.5; projection factor tan(alpha) omitted because the outflow angle is unknown.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosities are derived as L_bol = 474 * L_[OIII] (Lamastra et al. 2009) from extinction-corrected [OIII] luminosities of Kong & Ho (2018).
    Table 1 notes; used to compute epsilon_AGN.
  • domain assumption Jet powers are derived from 1.4 GHz radio luminosity using the Bîrzan et al. (2008) relation, originally calibrated for radio cavities.
    Section 4.1; applied to unresolved or barely resolved radio cores, which may not be cavities.
  • domain assumption High-velocity non-rotational gas is outflowing rather than merger-induced flows, based on typical merger velocity dispersions of tens of km/s (Bournaud et al. 2008, 2011; Whitmore et al. 2014).
    Section 3.4; affects all outflow identifications in the merging systems J1347 and J1356.
  • domain assumption R32>1 corresponds to enhanced excitation temperature (T_ex ~50 K) and/or optically thin gas.
    Section 4.3, following Oosterloo et al. (2017); the authors note that a single line ratio cannot uniquely constrain temperature and density.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Molecular gas excitation and outflow properties of obscured quasars at z$\sim$0.1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDXS4NRB

@misc{pith2026250502759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Molecular gas excitation and outflow properties of obscured quasars at z$\sim$0.1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDXS4NRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02759}
}
abstract

To investigate the impact of winds and low-to-moderate power jets on the cold molecular gas reservoirs of AGN, we present high angular resolution ALMA CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) observations of a sample of six type-2 quasars (QSO2s) at z$\sim$0.1 from the Quasar Feedback (QSOFEED) sample. Spatially resolved molecular line ratio maps, defined as $R_{32}=L'_{CO(3-2)}/L'_{CO(2-1)}$, and kinematic modelling were used to constrain changes in gas excitation and to identify gas outflows, respectively. We find that the molecular outflows are co-spatial with regions with $R_{32}$>1, indicating enhanced temperature relative to the discs and the presence of optically thin gas in the outflows. We find mass outflow rates of 5$<\dot{M}_{out}<$150$M_\odot$/yr, much lower than those expected from their AGN luminosities of $10^{45.5-46}$erg/s. The outflow kinetic energies might be driven by the combined action of jets and winds/radiation pressure, with radiative coupling efficiencies ($\epsilon_{AGN}=\dot{E}_{out}/L_{bol}$) ranging from $10^{-6}<\epsilon_{AGN}<10^{-4}$ and jet coupling efficiencies ($\epsilon_{jet}=\dot{E}_{out}/P_{jet}$) from $10^{-3}<\epsilon_{AGN}<10^{-2}$. A linear regression including the six QSO2s follows the locus of $\epsilon_{jet}\sim$0.1\%. Our results provide evidence that AGN-driven jets/winds disturb the molecular gas kinematics and excitation within the central kpc of the galaxies. The coupling between compact jets and the ISM might be relevant to AGN feedback, even in the case of radio-quiet galaxies, which are more representative of the AGN population. Finally, we find that the warm and cold molecular gas phases seem to be tracing the same outflow, with the main distinction between them being the mass they carry, while the warm ionized outflows do not seem to be another face of the same outflow, as they show different orientation, velocity, and radius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA CO(2-1) peak intensity maps of the six QSO2s. The colour bars indicate the scales of flux density in mJy. The black horizontal lines indicate the physical scales for each galaxy and the beam sizes are shown in the bottom-left corner of each panel as red ellipses. The CO(2-1) distribution present a variety of morphologies, such as spiral arms, double-peaks, and merger signatures. East is to the left and north to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Moment maps of the CO(3-2) emission for the QSO2s. From left to right panels correspond to the peak intensities (in mJy units), integrated intensity (moment 0, in Jy beam−1 km s−1units), intensity weighted velocity field (moment 1, in km s−1 ), and velocity dispersion (moment 2, in km s−1 ), respectively. East is to the left and north to the top. The red ellipses in the bottom left corner of the velocity dispersion … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Brightness temperature ratio R32 and CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) velocity dispersion maps. The top panels show the R32 map at the coarser resolution of either CO(2-1) or CO(3-2), with the VLA 6 GHz HR contours overlaid in black (at 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64σrms, with σrms listed in Table A.1 in the Appendix, also in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PVDs along the major (top panels) and minor (bottom pan￾els) axis of the of the CO(3-2) emission (left) and the R32 line ratios (right) for J1010. PVDs were extracted in a slit of 0′′ .6 width along the major (PA=288◦ ) and minor (PA=198◦ ) axis of the CO disk and are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , with R32 values between 0.6-1.2, higher than the typi￾cal values of R32<0.5 found along the spiral arms at larger radii. Compared to the integrated value of <R32>=0.22 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: High-velocity flux maps overlaid on the CO velocity dispersion maps for the 6 QSO2s. The colour maps corresponds to the moment 2 of the total CO(2-1) emission at 0′′ .2 resolution for all the QSO2s except for J1010, for which CO(3-2) at the same angular resolution is s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Outflow rate versus bolometric luminosity. The molecular outflow mass rates derived for the QSO2s using the three scenarios are displayed as large purple circles for the intermediate value, and dashed black lines connecting the most and least conservative values (small…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Kinetic power of the outflow versus bolometric luminosity (left panel) and jet power (right panel). The 1:1, 1:100, and 1:1000 relations are shown as dashed lines in both panels. The dashed purple line in both panels corresponds to the linear fit of the purple circles…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histogram of the integrated R32 for the 5 QSO2s with both CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) transitions available, shown as filled purple bars. The values measured for a sample of QSO2s at z <0.2 from Molyneux et al. (2024) are also shown in light blue, for the X-ray selected AGN r…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the R32 values in the PVD along the minor-axis for the high-velocity (red) and disk regions (green) shown in Figures 4-7. in these outflows (Meijerink et al. 2013). This could also be due to higher X-ray emission in the vicinity of the AGN, since R32 t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The changing impact of radio jets as they evolve: The view from the cold gas

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA CO(1-0), CO(2-1), and CO(3-2) maps of PKS 0023-26 reveal extreme molecular line ratios and gas depletion around the radio lobes, showing how jet feedback changes as the radio source grows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2019, A&A, 632, A33

    Audibert, A., Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A33

    2019

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 656, A60

    Audibert, A., Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A60

    2021

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 671, L12

    Audibert, A., Ramos Almeida, C., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L12

    2023

  4. [4]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  5. [5]

    Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794

    2003

  6. [6]

    S., Ramos Almeida, C., Holden, L

    Bessiere, P. S., Ramos Almeida, C., Holden, L. R., Tadhunter, C. N., & Canalizo, G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06421

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 1854 Bîrzan, L., McNamara, B

    Bieri, R., Dubois, Y ., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1854 Bîrzan, L., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Carilli, C. L., & Wise, M. W. 2008, ApJ, 686, 859

    2017

  8. [8]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

    2013

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Emsellem, E

    Bournaud, F., Duc, P. A., & Emsellem, E. 2008, MNRAS, 389, L8

    2008

  2. [10]

    C., Chapon, D., & Teyssier, R

    Bournaud, F., Powell, L. C., Chapon, D., & Teyssier, R. 2011, in Astrophysical Dynamics: From Stars to Galaxies, ed. N. H. Brummell, A. S. Brun, M. S. Miesch, & Y . Ponty, V ol. 271, 160–169

    2011

  3. [11]

    Bourne, M. A. & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4707

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bourne, M. A. & Yang, H.-Y . K. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 73

    2023

  5. [13]

    Carilli, C. L. & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105

    2013

  6. [14]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    Cicone, C., Brusa, M., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    2018

  7. [15]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21

    2014

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 558, A124

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

    2013

  9. [17]

    Costa, T., Rosdahl, J., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4197

    2018

  10. [18]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    2006

  11. [19]

    M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al

    Dasyra, K. M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, L7 Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., & Sijacki, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 33 Di Teodoro, E. M. & Fraternali, F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3021

    2016

  12. [20]

    & Solomon, P

    Downes, D. & Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615

    1998

  13. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    Dubois, Y ., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    2016

  14. [22]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    2014

  15. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

    Esposito, F., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8727

    2024

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 686

    Esposito, F., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 686

    2022

  17. [25]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  18. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.15611

    Fei, Q., Wang, R., Molina, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.15611

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 29

    Feruglio, C., Fabbiano, G., Bischetti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 29

    2020

  20. [28]

    2010, A&A, 518, L155

    Feruglio, C., Maiolino, R., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L155

    2010

  21. [29]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143

    2017

  22. [30]

    L., Kraemer, S., et al

    Fischer, T., Smith, K. L., Kraemer, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 200

    2019

  23. [31]

    C., Johnson, M

    Fischer, T. C., Johnson, M. C., Secrest, N. J., Crenshaw, D. M., & Kraemer, S. B. 2023, ApJ, 953, 87

    2023

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    2019

  25. [33]

    M., Dasyra, K

    Fotopoulou, C. M., Dasyra, K. M., Combes, F., Salomé, P., & Papachristou, M. 2019, A&A, 629, A30 García-Burillo, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A98 García-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A61 García-Burillo, ...

    2019

  26. [34]

    M., Mainieri, V ., et al

    Girdhar, A., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1608

    2022

  27. [35]

    M., Mainieri, V ., et al

    Girdhar, A., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9322

    2024

  28. [36]

    Harrison, C. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165

    2017

  29. [37]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

    2018

  30. [38]

    Harrison, C. M. & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17 Hervella Seoane, K., Ramos Almeida, C., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A71

    2024

  31. [39]

    C., Mullaney, J

    Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 9

    2014

  32. [40]

    2016, Learning Scientific Programming with Python (Cambridge Uni- versity Press)

    Hill, C. 2016, Learning Scientific Programming with Python (Cambridge Uni- versity Press)

    2016

  33. [41]

    R., Tadhunter, C., Audibert, A., et al

    Holden, L. R., Tadhunter, C., Audibert, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 446

    2024

  34. [42]

    Hollenbach, D. J. & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1999, Reviews of Modern Physics, 71, 173

    1999

  35. [43]

    & Fabian, A

    Ishibashi, W. & Fabian, A. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 93

    2015

  36. [44]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1780

    2021

  37. [45]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Thomson, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2710

    2019

  38. [46]

    I., Lister, M

    Kellermann, K. I., Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 539

    2004

  39. [47]

    & Nixon, C

    King, A. & Nixon, C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L46

    2015

  40. [48]

    Kong, M. & Ho, L. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 116

    2018

  41. [49]

    2009, A&A, 504, 73

    Lamastra, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 73

    2009

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 668, A45

    Lamperti, I., Pereira-Santaella, M., Perna, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A45

    2022

  43. [51]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 103

    Lamperti, I., Saintonge, A., Koss, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 103

    2020

  44. [52]

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

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

    2022

  45. [53]

    2020, A&A, 633, A134

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134

    2020

  46. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4738

    Mandal, A., Mukherjee, D., Federrath, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4738

    2021

  47. [55]

    2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed

    Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 169

    2004

  48. [56]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  49. [57]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023

    2012

  50. [58]

    Y ., et al

    Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y ., et al. 2022, MN- RAS[arXiv:2203.10251]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    E., Weiß, A., et al

    Meijerink, R., Kristensen, L. E., Weiß, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, L16

    2013

  52. [60]

    Meijerink, R., Spaans, M., & Israel, F. P. 2007, A&A, 461, 793

    2007

  53. [61]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3640

    Mingozzi, M., Vallini, L., Pozzi, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3640

    2018

  54. [62]

    J., Calistro Rivera, G., De Breuck, C., et al

    Molyneux, S. J., Calistro Rivera, G., De Breuck, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4420

    2024

  55. [63]

    J., Harrison, C

    Molyneux, S. J., Harrison, C. M., & Jarvis, M. E. 2019, A&A, 631, A132 Montoya Arroyave, I., Cicone, C., Makroleivaditi, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A13

    2019

  56. [64]

    K., Jackson, N

    Morabito, L. K., Jackson, N. J., Mooney, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A1

    2022

  57. [65]

    2013, Science, 341, 1082

    Morganti, R., Fogasy, J., Paragi, Z., Oosterloo, T., & Orienti, M. 2013, Science, 341, 1082

    2013

  58. [66]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 1135

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Murthy, S., & Tadhunter, C. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 1135

    2021

  59. [67]

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Oonk, J. B. R., Frieswijk, W., & Tadhunter, C. 2015, A&A, 580, A1

    2015

  60. [68]

    V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967

    2016

  61. [69]

    V ., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V ., Wagner, A. Y ., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544

    2018

  62. [70]

    R., Alexander, D

    Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Fine, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 622

    2013

  63. [71]

    Y ., et al

    Murthy, S., Morganti, R., Wagner, A. Y ., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 488

    2022

  64. [72]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    2019

  65. [73]

    J., Mukherjee, D., et al

    Nyland, K., Harwood, J. J., Mukherjee, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 23

    2018

  66. [74]

    2019, A&A, 632, A66

    Oosterloo, T., Morganti, R., Tadhunter, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A66

    2019

  67. [75]

    B., Morganti, R., et al

    Oosterloo, T., Raymond Oonk, J. B., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A38

    2017

  68. [76]

    2016, A&A Rev., 24, 13

    Padovani, P. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 13

    2016

  69. [77]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387

    2019

  70. [78]

    M., Fernández-Ontiveros, J

    Papachristou, M., Dasyra, K. M., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A115 Article number, page 18 of 23 A. Audibert et al.: Molecular gas excitation and outflow properties of obscured quasars at z∼0.1

    2023

  71. [79]

    2018, A&A, 616, A171

    Pereira-Santaella, M., Colina, L., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A171

    2018

  72. [80]

    Pierce, J. C. S., Tadhunter, C., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1736 Ramos Almeida, C., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L18 Ramos Almeida, C., Bischetti, M., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A155 Ramos Almeida, C., Garcia...

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    L., Strauss, M

    Reyes, R., Zakamska, N. L., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2373

    2008

  74. [82]

    A., et al

    Ruffa, I., Prandoni, I., Davis, T. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4485

    2022

  75. [83]

    S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D

    Rupke, D. S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D. B. 2005, ApJS, 160, 115

    2005

  76. [84]

    Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2517

    2015

  77. [85]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  78. [86]

    Solomon, P. M. & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677

    2005

  79. [87]

    A., et al

    Speranza, G., Ramos Almeida, C., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A63

    2024

  80. [88]

    A., et al

    Speranza, G., Ramos Almeida, C., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A55

    2022

  81. [89]

    P., Dallacasa, D., et al

    Stanghellini, C., O’Dea, C. P., Dallacasa, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 443, 891

    2005

  82. [90]

    E., Zakamska, N

    Sun, A.-L., Greene, J. E., Zakamska, N. L., & Nesvadba, N. P. H. 2014, ApJ, 790, 160

    2014

  83. [91]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74

    2013

  84. [92]

    Tadhunter, C., Morganti, R., Rose, M., Oonk, J. B. R., & Oosterloo, T. 2014, Nature, 511, 440

    2014

  85. [93]

    Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y ., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4535

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, A&A, 685, A122

    Ulivi, L., Venturi, G., Cresci, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A122

    2024

  87. [95]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2779

    Valentini, M., Murante, G., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2779

    2020

  88. [96]

    Vallini, L., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Pallottini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4502 van der Tak, F. F. S., Black, J. H., Schöier, F. L., Jansen, D. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2007, A&A, 468, 627 van der Werf, P. P., Isaak, K. G., Meijerink, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L42

    2019

  89. [97]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 2

    2020

  90. [98]

    2021, A&A, 648, A17

    Venturi, G., Cresci, G., Marconi, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A17

    2021

  91. [99]

    2023, A&A, 678, A127 Villar-Martín, M., Emonts, B., Cabrera Lavers, A., et al

    Venturi, G., Treister, E., Finlez, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A127 Villar-Martín, M., Emonts, B., Cabrera Lavers, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4659

    2023

  92. [100]

    2014, A&A, 570, A28

    Viti, S., García-Burillo, S., Fuente, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A28

    2014

  93. [101]

    R., Costa, T., Harrison, C

    Ward, S. R., Costa, T., Harrison, C. M., & Mainieri, V . 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1733

    2024

  94. [102]

    C., Brogan, C., Chandar, R., et al

    Whitmore, B. C., Brogan, C., Chandar, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 156

    2014

  95. [103]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.16560

    Ye, H., Sweijen, F., van Weeren, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.16560

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Zakamska, N. L. & Greene, J. E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 784

    2014

  97. [105]

    V ., Feruglio, C., Bischetti, M., et al

    Zanchettin, M. V ., Feruglio, C., Bischetti, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A25

    2021

  98. [106]

    V ., Ramos Almeida, C., Audibert, A., et al

    Zanchettin, M. V ., Ramos Almeida, C., Audibert, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A185

    2025

  99. [107]

    & King, A

    Zubovas, K. & King, A. 2012, ApJ, 745, L34 Article number, page 19 of 23 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main Table A.1. Properties of the radio observations. Name telescope frequency beam rms project Reference (GHz) ( ′′×′′) ( µJy/beam) ID J1010 VLA 6 0.25 ×0.22 79 13B-127 (1) J11...

    2019

Pith tools

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