Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Simulating nearby disc galaxies on the main star formation sequence II. The gas structure transition in low and high stellar mass discs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the absence of central gas discs in low-mass barred galaxies is not a sharp stellar-mass cutoff but a continuous lengthening of the reservoir-formation timescale, driven by the competition between supernova feedback…

desk verdict Solid descriptive dichotomy across 35 simulations, but the feedback-vs-gravity causal claim rests on a single control run and the M^-3/2 scaling is not pinned by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12923 v1 pith:E5AFK7ZJ submitted 2025-06-15 astro-ph.GA

Pierrick Verwilghen , Eric Emsellem , Florent Renaud , Oscar Agertz , Milena Valentini , Amelia Fraser-McKelvie , Sharon Meidt , Justus Neumann
show 9 more authors
Eva Schinnerer Ralf S. Klessen Simon C. O. Glover Ashley. T. Barnes Daniel A. Dale Damian R. Gleis Rowan J. Smith Sophia K. Stuber Thomas G. Williams
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords barreddiscgalaxiescentralmolecularzonesgasreservoirssupernovafeedbackinnerLindbladresonanceinterstellarmediumstructurehydrodynamicalsimulationsPHANGS
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

Nearby disc galaxies split into two kinds: massive barred galaxies collect gas into a compact central disc a few hundred parsecs across, while lower-mass barred galaxies keep a clumpy, chaotic gas distribution with no well-defined centre. This paper uses 35 high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations spanning the observed properties of the PHANGS galaxies to argue that the split is real and to give it a physical cause. The paper claims that the change is not an abrupt stellar-mass threshold near $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ but a continuous, steep increase of the time needed for a bar to assemble a central mass concentration as stellar mass drops from $10^{10}$ to $10^{9.5}\,M_\odot$. The controlling factor is the balance between supernova feedback, which stirs and disperses the inflowing gas, and the depth of the local gravitational potential, which keeps the flow organised. If correct, the result ties bar dynamics, stellar mass, and feedback together into a single timescale and explains why the innermost rung of gas supply to galactic nuclei appears preferentially in massive galaxies.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic that marks the transition is the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR), the radius where the bar pattern speed matches $\Omega - \kappa/2$ (the angular frequency minus half the epicyclic frequency); its appearance signals that the bar has built a central mass concentration. The mechanism that carries the argument is the ratio of the vertical velocity dispersion, driven by supernova feedback, to the local escape velocity, which measures the depth of the gravitational potential. This ratio cleanly separates the two regimes, at roughly 10 to 15 percent in low-mass models versus about 5 percent in high-mass ones, and it is tested directly by the feedback-free control run G001-NOSN. Supporting tracers, namely the gas density PDF, the virial parameter, and the Mach number of star-forming cells, quantify how the central gas state stays static in low-mass bars but is transformed in high-mass ones.

What would settle it

A mass-complete ALMA survey of barred main-sequence galaxies at $10^{9.5}$ to $10^{9.75}\,M_\odot$ would settle it: if a substantial fraction already host a settled central molecular disc with an ILR-like central concentration a few bar rotations after bar formation, the feedback-versus-potential timescale picture would be falsified. A cheaper numerical test is to re-run the low-mass model with doubled supernova energy per explosion; the central reservoir should form even later or never if feedback is truly the blocking agent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In models with stellar mass at or above $10^{10}\,M_\odot$, a bar reorganises the gas within a few bar rotations: lane-like flows connect the bar ends to a growing central disc of gas and young stars a few hundred parsecs across, a central surface-density peak appears, and the angular-frequency profile develops an inner Lindblad resonance, the dynamical signature of a new central mass concentration. In models at $10^{9.5}\,M_\odot$, none of this happens on the same timescale: the gas stays clumpy, the density probability distribution function and the virial-parameter and Mach-number distributions barely change after the bar forms, and no inner Lindblad resonance appears. The paper's central claim is that this apparent dichotomy is really a continuous mass-dependent timescale: a test run at $10^{9.75}\,M_\odot$ assembles its reservoir later than the $10^{10}$ models but earlier than the $10^{9.5}$ ones, and the estimated formation timescale scales roughly as $M_*^{-3/2}$, significantly steeper than linear. The decisive experiment is a control run with supernova feedback switched off (G001-NOSN): the same low-mass galaxy that stayed clumpy with feedback builds a clear central gas reservoir and an inner Lindblad resonance without it. The paper therefore identifies the relative strength of supernova feedback against the local escape velocity, rather than the stellar mass itself, as the quantity that sets the regime.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the fidelity of the simulated supernova feedback, meaning the energy and momentum injected at 12 pc resolution, and on a single control run with supernovae switched off; if that subgrid recipe deposits too much or too little momentum the inferred timescale steepness would shift, and the isolated discs with no gas inflow or environment may not capture how real galaxies assemble their centres.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Barred galaxies above roughly $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ should systematically develop central molecular reservoirs with an inner Lindblad resonance within a few bar rotations, while lower-mass barred galaxies should show reservoirs only after much longer times or not at all, matching the PHANGS morphologies the paper compares with.
  • The reservoir-formation timescale sets when gas can be handed inward toward the central supermassive black hole, so in low-mass galaxies nuclear feeding is delayed relative to bar formation, which changes expectations for black-hole growth in that mass range.
  • Star formation is redistributed by the transition: in high-mass bars it concentrates in the central reservoir, whereas in low-mass bars it continues all along the bar, so the observed sites of young stars trace the feedback-to-gravity balance.
  • The superlinear $M_*^{-3/2}$ dependence, if confirmed, predicts a steep rise in the fraction of barred galaxies with central gas discs between $10^{9.5}$ and $10^{10}\,M_\odot$, a gradient that can be checked statistically in the PHANGS sample.
  • Unbarred galaxies, or bars destroyed early, never redistribute their gas, so the reservoir phenomenon is specifically a bar-driven process, an expectation already visible in the unbarred models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $M_*^{-3/2}$ scaling is right, gas fraction acts as a second clock: at fixed mass, galaxies with more gas sustain stronger feedback and should form reservoirs even later, a correlation the current grid hints at but does not systematically map and one that ALMA observations could test directly.
  • The mechanism implies a self-reinforcing loop that the paper sketches: once a central seed forms it deepens the potential, raises the ILR barrier, and makes the flow more ordered, so the transition may be sharper in time for any single galaxy than in the population, an evolutionary prediction for how a low-mass galaxy's ISM reorganises late.
  • Real galaxies are not isolated: cosmological gas accretion could either dilute the central gas with fresh fuel or, by raising the gas fraction, strengthen feedback and lengthen the timescale; running these initial conditions inside a cosmological environment would show which effect wins.
  • A toy model balancing supernova momentum injection against the bar's inward torque, which the paper suggests as future work, could turn the measured $M_*^{-3/2}$ scaling into a prediction for the reservoir radius and central density as functions of mass, testable against the observed central molecular zone catalogue.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 35 RAMSES hydrodynamical simulations of isolated disc galaxies built from PHANGS-like initial conditions, spanning stellar masses 10^9.5 to 10^11 M_sun, gas fractions 10-40%, different scale lengths, and bulge fractions. The authors show that barred models with M* >= 10^10 M_sun systematically build a central gas and stellar disc, develop an inner Lindblad resonance, and show strong evolution of the gas density PDF, virial parameter, and Mach number, while lower-mass models remain clumpy and show little time evolution. They attribute this dichotomy to the balance between supernova feedback and the local gravitational potential, using the vertical velocity dispersion normalized by escape velocity and a single control run without supernova feedback (G001-NOSN). They further propose that the transition corresponds to a continuous, superlinear (M^-3/2) increase of the reservoir-formation timescale with decreasing stellar mass.

Significance. If the mechanism claim is upheld, the paper would provide a physically motivated explanation for the observed absence of central molecular zones in lower-mass barred galaxies and would connect bar-driven gas transport to the secular growth of central structures and AGN fueling. The strengths of the paper are its systematic 35-model grid, the clear visual and quantitative characterization of the structural dichotomy (Figs. 2-7), the use of multiple tracers (ILR, PDF, virial parameter, Mach number), and the explicit acknowledgment of several limitations. The control experiment G001-NOSN is a valuable step, but the causal claim is currently underdetermined by a single run, and the M^-3/2 scaling is not constrained by the three presented points. These issues are addressable and do not undermine the well-documented simulation-internal structural transition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figs. 9-11] The central claim that supernova feedback is the main driver of the low/high-mass dichotomy rests on a single control run, G001-NOSN, in which SN feedback is switched off in one low-mass, F=10% model. This experiment shows that in that one realization the central reservoir can form without SN feedback, but it does not establish the claimed continuous balance between feedback and the local gravitational potential: there is no SN-off run at M*=10^10 or at F=40%, and there is no stochastic repeat. The sensitivity to single events is illustrated by G069 in Appendix B, where one in-spiralling massive cluster destroys the bar; this makes single-realization causal inference fragile. I recommend adding at least one SN-off run in the high-mass regime and at least one repeated seed for G001 and G001-NOSN before the abstract's 'physical origin ... driven by stellar feedback' claim can be considered established.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Fig. 13] The claimed M^-3/2 scaling of the reservoir-formation timescale is not actually constrained by the three runs shown. The seed-formation times quoted are 5.9, 2.3, and 1.7 Gyr for M*=10^9.5, 10^9.75, and 10^10; relative to the 1.7 Gyr run, the ratios are 3.5 and 1.35, while M^-3/2 predicts ratios of 5.6 and 2.4, respectively. The implied exponent from the two intervals is roughly 0.7-0.8, not 1.5. Because Section 5.3 uses this scaling to support the 'continuous increase' interpretation, the authors should either remove the specific power-law claim or test it with additional intermediate masses and report uncertainties.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Fig. 8] The quantitative basis for the feedback-versus-gravity balance is the ratio sigma_z/v_esc, but sigma_z is the total vertical velocity dispersion and includes contributions from bar streaming, gravitational instabilities, and other non-feedback processes. The interpretation that the mass segregation in sigma_z/v_esc is specifically due to SN feedback therefore relies on the single G001-NOSN comparison. To strengthen the causal claim, the authors should either measure a feedback-specific quantity (for example, the ratio of SN energy/momentum injection to local escape energy) or explicitly state in the main text that the current evidence is a proxy plus one control run.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, first paragraph] The text reads 'higher stellar mass models (i.e. M* <= 10^10 M_sun)'; this should be '>=' to be consistent with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 5.2] The intermediate-mass model G000M975F10L2B00 is not listed in Table 1; it should be added for completeness since it is central to the timescale argument.
  3. [Figure 10 caption] The caption refers to 'both G0001 models'; this appears to be a typo for 'G001 models'.
  4. [Section 5.2] The reservoir-formation times are also quoted in 'bar rotations' (12, 5, and 5), but the bar rotation period is not defined; please specify how this is computed.
  5. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 5 caption] The NPDF panels are described as 'normalised by the PDF at tau=1', but the caption should state the exact normalization used so that the reader can reproduce the quantity from the PDFs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the regime change is an emergent simulation result supported by a dedicated SN-off control run; the M^-3/2 timescale is an openly flagged empirical fit, not a fitted input masquerading as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim — that the low/high-mass ISM regime change is driven by the relative balance between SN feedback and the local gravitational potential — is an emergent simulation outcome, not an identity or a refit. The initial-condition grid spans PHANGS-like stellar masses, gas fractions, scale lengths, and bulge fractions, but no initial condition encodes whether a central reservoir or ILR will form; the transition is diagnosed from simulated gas maps, PDFs, virial parameters, Mach numbers, and Ω−κ/2 profiles (Sects. 2–3). The causal attribution rests primarily on a dedicated control run, G001-NOSN (Sect. 4.2), in which only SN feedback is switched off while stellar winds remain: 'we turn offthe feedback from supernovae'. This is an independent perturbation of the proposed driver, not a parameter refit. The σ_z/v_esc ratio is a physical diagnostic of feedback relative to potential, and its mass segregation is measured, not imposed. The only fitted quantity, the M^-3/2 growth timescale (Sect. 5.2), is explicitly labelled as an estimate: 'While the true dependence needs to be confirmed with additional experiments'; it is not used as input to the mechanism claim. Self-citations to Verwilghen et al. (2024) document the simulation setup and prior phase classification, but the current paper re-derives the regime change from the extended grid and the SN-off control, so they are not load-bearing. The authors also flag the single-control limitation ('Running test simulations such as G001-NOSN for all our simulations is beyond the scope of the present paper') and call the evolutionary scenario 'speculative' (Sect. 5.3). These are honesty markers that lower, not raise, circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the RAMSES subgrid model (star formation efficiency and supernova feedback coupling) calibrated in prior work, the assumption that isolated discs without accretion represent PHANGS galaxies, and the assumption that 12 pc resolution captures the gas dynamics controlling the transition. The NOSN control test isolates feedback, but only in one model.

free parameters (2)
  • Star formation efficiency and threshold = from Agertz et al. 2013, 2021, not re-derived here
    Subgrid star formation prescription affects where and when stars form and thus the strength of feedback, which is central to the feedback-versus-gravity balance.
  • Supernova feedback energy and momentum coupling = from Agertz et al. 2013, 2021, not re-derived here
    The G001-NOSN experiment shows supernova feedback is the deciding factor; the quantitative location of the mass threshold depends on how much energy and momentum supernovae deposit into the 12 pc cells.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RAMSES AMR hydrodynamics and gravity accurately represent ISM structure at 12 pc resolution
    The transition, PDF shape, and ILR detection depend on the simulation resolving the relevant scales; the authors note the high-density PDF cutoff is resolution-dependent (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Isolated galaxy idealization is adequate, with no cosmological gas accretion or environment
    The comparison with observed PHANGS galaxies ignores external gas inflow and interactions, which could alter bar-driven fueling and the feedback balance (Sections 2.1 and 5.3).
  • domain assumption Subgrid prescriptions from Agertz et al. (2013, 2021) are valid across the simulated mass range
    Cooling, star formation, and feedback recipes are adopted without recalibration; feedback strength determines where the threshold lies (Sections 2.1 and 4.2).
  • domain assumption Observational support from PHANGS is robust and corresponds to the simulated transition
    The 'in line with observations' claim relies on qualitative morphological comparisons and on papers in preparation (Sections 5.1 and 5.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating nearby disc galaxies on the main star formation sequence II. The gas structure transition in low and high stellar mass discs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5AFK7ZJ

@misc{pith2026250612923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating nearby disc galaxies on the main star formation sequence II. The gas structure transition in low and high stellar mass discs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5AFK7ZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12923}
}
abstract

Recent hydrodynamical simulations of isolated barred disc galaxies have suggested a structural change in the distribution of the interstellar medium (ISM) around a stellar mass M$_{*}$ of $10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$. In the higher-mass regime (M$_{*} \geq 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$), we observe the formation of a central gas and stellar disc with a typical size of a few hundred parsecs connected through lanes to the ends of the stellar bar. In the lower-mass regime (M$_{*} < 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$), such an inner disc is absent and the gas component exhibits a more chaotic distribution. Observations of nearby star-forming galaxies support the existence of such a change. These inner gas discs may represent an important intermediate scale connecting the large kiloparsec-scale structures with the nuclear (sub-parsec) region, transporting gas inwards to fuel the central supermassive black hole (SMBH). For this work, we used an extended set of high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of isolated disc galaxies with initial properties (i.e. stellar mass, gas fraction, stellar disc scale length, and the bulge mass fraction) with properties covering the range of galaxies in the PHANGS sample to investigate this change of regime. We studied the physical properties of the star-forming ISM in both stellar mass regimes and extracted a few physical tracers: the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR), the probability distribution function (PDF), the virial parameter, and the Mach number. In line with observations, we confirm a structure transition in the simulations that occurs between a stellar mass of $10^{9.5}$ and $10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$. We show that the physical origin of this change of regime is driven by stellar feedback and its contribution relative to the underlying gravitational potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST MIRI 7.7 µm images of two nearby barred main-sequence star-forming galaxies (GO 3707; PI Leroy) NGC 1087 and NGC 3507 (stellar masses of ∼ 109.95 and ∼ 1010.4 M⊙, respectively) emphasising the difference in morphology. Both images have been deprojected, and the bar is set horizontally. The field of view is 7 kpc × 7 kpc, thus show￾ing the central ±3.5 kpc. These data have previously appeared in Chown et al. (20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface density map of gas and newly formed stars (≤ 100 Myr) of four models in two stellar mass bins (G013, G025, with an initial stellar mass of 109.5 M⊙; G037, and G053 with an initial stellar mass of 1010 M⊙) from our set of simulations. Each panel shows one model at different values of the parameter τ, with τ = 1 corresponding to the bar formation timescale. G013 and G053 have the same 20% gas mass fraction, wh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalised surface gas density profiles Σg,norm(τ, R) for our set of simulations at τ = 0.5, 1, and 2 (see text; Σg,norm(τ, R) = Σg/Σg(τ = 0, R)). All Σg,norm profiles have been divided by the value of Σg,norm at R = 2.2·l∗, for legibility. Each thin blue curve represents a low stellar mass model (< 1010 M⊙) and each thin red curve corresponds to a higher stellar mass model (≥ 1010 M⊙; see inset in the top left pane… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution over time (from left to right, τ = 0.5, 1, and 2) of the normalised angular frequency Ω (dot-dashed lines) and Ω − κ/2 (solid curves) radial profiles of the barred low stellar mass (blue curves, top row) and high stellar mass (red curves, bottom row) models. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the mass-weighted gas density PDFs as a func￾tion of τ (for τ = 1, 2, and 5) of four of our simulated galaxies (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution (from left to right) of the vertical velocity dispersion σz (two bottom rows) and σz normalised by the local escape velocity (two top rows). The blue (resp. red) curves represent models with an initial stellar mass of 109.5 M⊙(resp. above or equal to 1010 M⊙,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface density map of gas of model G001 and G001-NOSN. NOSN stands for the run without feedback from supernovae and only includes feedback from stellar winds. Each panel shows one model at different values of the parameter τ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as bottom panels of Fig.8, but for model G001 (blue curve) and G001-NOSN (orange curve) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time evolution of simulations G025 and G053, a low and intermediate stellar mass system (109.5 and 1010 M⊙, respectively) in the central 2 kpc. Four running times are presented (from left to right, first six panels from top), with steps of 200 Myr, with a seed gas res…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of the morphological transition using models G001 (top panel), G000M975F10L2B00 (middle panel), and G037 (bottom panel), corresponding to a low-, low-intermediate, and high stellar mass model, respectively. In each panel we show the evolution of the surfa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    V., Leitner , S

    Agertz , O., Kravtsov , A. V., Leitner , S. N., & Gnedin , N. Y. 2013, , 770, 25

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2009, , 392, 294

    Agertz , O., Lake , G., Teyssier , R., et al. 2009, , 392, 294

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    2021, , 503, 5826

    Agertz , O., Renaud , F., Feltzing , S., et al. 2021, , 503, 5826

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    P., Agertz , O., Renaud , F., & Teyssier , R

    Andersson , E. P., Agertz , O., Renaud , F., & Teyssier , R. 2023, , 521, 2196

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    1992 a , , 259, 328

    Athanassoula , E. 1992 a , , 259, 328

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    1992 b , , 259, 345

    Athanassoula , E. 1992 b , , 259, 345

    work page 1992

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Athanassoula , E. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 275, Disks of Galaxies: Kinematics, Dynamics and Peturbations, ed. E. Athanassoula , A. Bosma , & R. Mujica , 141--152

    2002

  2. [10]

    Athanassoula , E., Machado , R. E. G., & Rodionov , S. A. 2013, , 429, 1949

    2013

  3. [11]

    2024, , 968, 86

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., Tepper-Garcia , T., Agertz , O., & Federrath , C. 2024, , 968, 86

    2024

  4. [12]

    D., & Minchin , R

    Butcher , Z., Schneider , S., van Driel , W., Lehnert , M. D., & Minchin , R. 2016, , 596, A60

    2016

  5. [13]

    2012, , 544, A65

    Catinella , B., Schiminovich , D., Kauffmann , G., et al. 2012, , 544, A65

    2012

  6. [14]

    & Klypin , A

    Ceverino , D. & Klypin , A. 2007, , 379, 1155

    2007

  7. [15]

    2023, , 522, 4078

    Choi , W., Liu , L., Bureau , M., et al. 2023, , 522, 4078

    2023

  8. [16]

    K., Sandstrom , K., et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H., Beckman , J

    Comer \'o n , S., Knapen , J. H., Beckman , J. E., et al. 2010, , 402, 2462

    2010

  10. [18]

    S., et al

    Courteau , S., Cappellari , M., de Jong , R. S., et al. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 47

    2014

  11. [19]

    D., Comer \'o n , S., et al

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Moyano , F. D., Comer \'o n , S., et al. 2020, , 644, A38

    2020

  12. [20]

    1982, , 199, 1069

    Efstathiou , G., Lake , G., & Negroponte , J. 1982, , 199, 1069

    1982

  13. [21]

    2015, , 446, 2468

    Emsellem , E., Renaud , F., Bournaud , F., et al. 2015, , 446, 2468

    2015

  14. [22]

    2022, , 659, A191

    Emsellem , E., Schinnerer , E., Santoro , F., et al. 2022, , 659, A191

    2022

  15. [23]

    2024, , 528, 3613

    Erwin , P. 2024, , 528, 3613

    2024

  16. [24]

    2020, , 495, 4158

    Fraser-McKelvie , A., Arag \'o n-Salamanca , A., Merrifield , M., et al. 2020, , 495, 4158

    2020

  17. [25]

    D., Barnes , A

    Henshaw , J. D., Barnes , A. T., Battersby , C., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 83

    2023

  18. [26]

    Knapen , J. H. 2005, , 429, 141

    2005

  19. [27]

    C., Sandstrom , K

    Lee , J. C., Sandstrom , K. M., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2023, , 944, L17

    2023

  20. [28]

    C., Whitmore , B

    Lee , J. C., Whitmore , B. C., Thilker , D. A., et al. 2022, , 258, 10

    2022

  21. [29]

    K., Sandstrom , K

    Leroy , A. K., Sandstrom , K. M., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 244, 24

    2019

  22. [30]

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

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

    2021

  23. [31]

    & Klessen , R

    Mac Low , M.-M. & Klessen , R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125

    2004

  24. [32]

    & Serabyn , E

    Morris , M. & Serabyn , E. 1996, , 34, 645

    1996

  25. [33]

    L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Muratov , A. L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2015, , 454, 2691

    2015

  26. [34]

    2019, , 490, 3234

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

    2019

  27. [35]

    A., Wisotzki , L., et al

    Neumann , J., Gadotti , D. A., Wisotzki , L., et al. 2019, , 627, A26

    2019

  28. [36]

    C., McKee , C

    Ostriker , E. C., McKee , C. F., & Leroy , A. K. 2010, , 721, 975

    2010

  29. [37]

    2017, , 840, 48

    Padoan , P., Haugb lle , T., Nordlund , A ., & Frimann , S. 2017, , 840, 48

    2017

  30. [38]

    2021, , 656, A133

    Querejeta , M., Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S., et al. 2021, , 656, A133

    2021

  31. [39]

    2013, , 436, 1836

    Renaud , F., Bournaud , F., Emsellem , E., et al. 2013, , 436, 1836

    2013

  32. [40]

    Robichaud, F., Williamson, D., Martel, H., Kawata, D., & Ellison, S. L. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3722

    2017

  33. [41]

    2024, , 691, A351

    Ruiz-Garc \' a , M., Querejeta , M., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2024, , 691, A351

    2024

  34. [42]

    Rupke , D. S. N. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 138

    2018

  35. [43]

    D., et al

    Schinnerer , E., Emsellem , E., Henshaw , J. D., et al. 2023, , 944, L15

    2023

  36. [44]

    2019, , 872, 5

    Seo , W.-Y., Kim , W.-T., Kwak , S., et al. 2019, , 872, 5

    2019

  37. [45]

    Sormani , M. C. & Barnes , A. T. 2019, , 484, 1213

    2019

  38. [46]

    C., Barnes , A

    Sormani , M. C., Barnes , A. T., Sun , J., et al. 2023 a , , 523, 2918

    2023

  39. [47]

    C., Sobacchi , E., & Sanders , J

    Sormani , M. C., Sobacchi , E., & Sanders , J. L. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.14093

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C., Sobacchi , E., & Sanders , J

    Sormani , M. C., Sobacchi , E., & Sanders , J. L. 2024, , 528, 5742

    2024

  41. [49]

    C., Tress , R

    Sormani , M. C., Tress , R. G., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2020, , 497, 5024

    2020

  42. [50]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Williams , T

    Stuber , S. K., Schinnerer , E., Williams , T. G., et al. 2023, , 676, A113

    2023

  43. [51]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., et al

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., et al. 2022, , 164, 43

    2022

  44. [52]

    2002, , 385, 337

    Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

    2002

  45. [53]

    2005, , 43, 769

    Veilleux , S., Cecil , G., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2005, , 43, 769

    2005

  46. [54]

    2007, , 474, 43

    Verley , S., Combes , F., Verdes-Montenegro , L., Bergond , G., & Leon , S. 2007, , 474, 43

    2007

  47. [55]

    2024, , 687, A53

    Verwilghen , P., Emsellem , E., Renaud , F., et al. 2024, , 687, A53

    2024

  48. [56]

    G., Lee , J

    Williams , T. G., Lee , J. C., Larson , K. L., et al. 2024, , 273, 13

    2024

  49. [57]

    2022, , 666, A175

    Yu , S.-Y., Kalinova , V., Colombo , D., et al. 2022, , 666, A175

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.