Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MICONIC: JWST/MIRI MRS reveals a fast ionized gas outflow in the central region of Centaurus A

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST/MIRI MRS observations of Centaurus A show a fast ionized gas outflow whose fastest gas, above 500 km/s, comes from the central 6 parsecs, with an ionized mass outflow rate near 1.6-2.9 solar masses per year and no fast molecular…

desk verdict Genuine MIRI-MRS detection of fast ionized gas in Cen A's nucleus, but the mass outflow rate leans on an assumed Pfα broad-flux fraction that should be tested before the number becomes a benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15286 v1 pith:KFUEEYHV submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.GA

A. Alonso-Herrero , L. Hermosa Muñoz , A. Labiano , P. Guillard , M. García-Marín , D. Dicken , S. García-Burillo , L. Pantoni
show 15 more authors
V. Buiten L. Colina T. Boeker M. Baes A. Eckart L. Evangelista G. Oestlin D. Rouan P. van der Werf F. Walter M. J. Ward G. Wright M. Guedel Th. Henning P.-O. Lagage
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords CentaurusANGC5128radiogalaxyactivegalacticnucleiionizedgasoutflowjet-ISMinteractionJWSTMIRIMRSmid-infraredspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses JWST/MIRI MRS mid-infrared spectroscopy to map the inner 100-200 parsecs of Centaurus A, the nearest radio galaxy, in both ionized and warm molecular gas. It claims that ionized gas is being expelled from the unresolved central 6 parsecs at speeds above 500 km/s, with line wings reaching roughly +1000 and -1400 km/s. The inferred ionized mass outflow rate is 1.6-2.9 solar masses per year, and the kinematics resemble simulation predictions of a jet-inflated bubble expanding into the galaxy's interstellar medium. In contrast, the warm molecular hydrogen shows rotation and noncircular motions but no fast outflow, suggesting that the jet couples only weakly to the molecular gas on these scales.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observational object is the unresolved nuclear spectrum of the [Ar II] 6.99 micron and [Ne III] 15.56 micron lines, decomposed into one, two, and three Gaussian components; the broadest component, with sigma around 600 km/s and confined to a 6 pc aperture, is the outflow signature. Tilted-ring kinematic modeling separates the rotating disk component and exposes residual noncircular motions, while line-ratio diagnostics such as [Ne V]/[Ne II], [Ne III]/[Ne II], and [Fe II]/Pf alpha provide the shock-excitation evidence. The mass outflow rate is carried by the Pf alpha flux, the electron density from the two [Ne V] lines, and the standard expression dM/dt = 3 M v/R, evaluated for a compact unresolved source, which makes the rate a lower limit.

What would settle it

Resolve the hydrogen recombination line with an independent, higher-signal observation of the central 0.3 arcsec: if a kinematic decomposition shows that the broad Pf alpha fraction is far below half, or if the broad component is not seen in a recombination line, the outflow rate is not supported. In addition, a position-velocity map along the jet at sub-arcsecond resolution showing the +1000/-1400 km/s gas to be localized clouds rather than a coherent expanding shell would count against the jet-driven bubble interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Cen A's nuclear region contains a fast ionized gas outflow confined to the inner 6 pc, detected through broad components in the mid-infrared [Ar II] and [Ne III] line profiles with velocity dispersion around 600 km/s and extreme line-of-sight velocities near +1000 and -1400 km/s in position-velocity diagrams. Using the Pf alpha hydrogen recombination line, an electron density from the [Ne V] line ratio, and the assumption that about half of the Pf alpha flux is in the broad outflow component, the paper derives an ionized gas mass outflow rate of 1.6-2.9 solar masses per year. The paper also shows that both AGN radiation pressure and the radio jet power are energetically sufficient to launch the outflow, and that mid-infrared line ratios favor a contribution from shocks in addition to AGN photoionization. Unlike the ionized gas, the warm H2 lines show no clear fast nuclear outflow, only a weak blueshifted wing, which the authors attribute to low nuclear warm-H2 column density and the jet being launched nearly perpendicular to the circumnuclear disk.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the broad, faint component of the nuclear gas emission is truly gas moving outward in an organized outflow, and that roughly half of the hydrogen recombination flux sits in that component, rather than the broad wings being scattered light, gas lit up near the black hole, or a chance superposition of clouds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cen A's nucleus is currently ejecting roughly 1.6-2.9 solar masses per year of ionized gas from a region only 6 pc across, a significant channel for removing gas from the very center of the galaxy.
  • The fastest ionized gas is confined to the unresolved nucleus, so the outflow is compact and the derived mass outflow rate is a lower limit that could rise with better spatial resolution.
  • The absence of a fast warm-H2 outflow implies that the jet's mechanical coupling to the molecular circumnuclear disk is weak on these scales, consistent with a jet launched almost perpendicular to the disk.
  • Both AGN radiation pressure and the radio jet can energetically drive the outflow, so energy arguments alone do not identify the driver; the jet is favored by its relativistic apparent speed.
  • Enhanced velocity dispersions perpendicular to the jet and the shock-sensitive line ratios align the observed kinematics with simulation predictions for a jet-inflated bubble expanding into the interstellar medium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: if the outflow is energy-driven by the jet, the momentum boost relative to AGN radiation (a factor of 16-64) should grow with distance from the nucleus, so mapping the outflow at 10-50 pc would distinguish a momentum-conserving from an energy-conserving bubble.
  • The same mid-infrared diagnostics could classify other optically obscured nearby AGNs: a compact broad component in low-ionization lines plus an elevated [Fe II]/Pf alpha ratio may be a generic jet-inflated bubble signature even when the narrow-line region is hidden by dust.
  • A deeper observation of the nuclear Pf alpha line, or of a brighter hydrogen recombination line at comparable spectral resolution, would directly test the assumed 50 percent broad-flux fraction and could revise the outflow rate by up to a factor of two.
  • Comparing the line shapes of low-ionization [Ar II] with high-ionization coronal lines at the same spectral resolution would settle whether the broad wings are truly outflowing gas or scattered AGN light, since scattering and photoionization would imprint different ionization-dependent profiles.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/MIRI MRS 5–28 μm observations of the central ~100–200 pc of Centaurus A and analyzes the kinematics of ionized fine-structure lines and warm H2 rotational lines. The ionized gas is found to be extended along the radio jet direction, with broad nuclear components (σ ≈ 600 km s−1 for [Ar II] and [Ne III]), high velocity wings reaching about +1000 and −1400 km s−1 in position-velocity diagrams, and enhanced velocity dispersions perpendicular to the jet. These features are interpreted as a jet/AGN-driven ionized outflow within the central unresolved ~6 pc region. Using the Pfα line and assuming that half of its flux belongs to a broad outflow component, the authors derive an ionized gas mass outflow rate dM/dt ≈ 1.6–2.9 M⊙ yr−1 and conclude that both the AGN radiation field and the radio jet power are sufficient to drive it. The warm H2 gas is mostly rotational with mild noncircular motions, and no fast H2 outflow is detected. The central claim is that the MRS data provide clear evidence of an ionized gas outflow with |v| > 500 km s−1 originating from the central 6 pc.

Significance. If the qualitative outflow detection holds, this paper is a valuable addition to the small set of spatially resolved, multi-phase studies of jet-ISM interaction in a nearby radio galaxy, and it strengthens the observational case that low-to-intermediate-power radio jets can drive ionized outflows on tens-of-parsec scales. The explicit comparison with simulations of jet-inflated bubbles, the use of multiple independent fine-structure lines, and the resolved p-v diagrams are strengths. The quantitative mass outflow rate, however, depends on an unmeasured broad-flux fraction and on a standard one-zone formula, and the unresolved nuclear geometry leaves room for alternative interpretations. The paper would be strengthened by a direct propagation of the assumed flux-fraction uncertainty and by a more cautious framing of the outflow interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5] The mass outflow rate rests on the assumption that approximately half of the Pfα flux belongs to the broad outflow component. This fraction is not measured: the text states that Pfα is 'broad and relatively faint against the bright continuum, which complicates an accurate kinematic decomposition,' and the 50% value is transferred from two-Gaussian fits to [Ar II] and [Ne III]. The transfer is not secure because recombination lines and collisionally excited lines have different density and temperature dependences, and the two-Gaussian versus three-Gaussian decompositions yield different broad-component parameters (e.g., [Ar II] σ_broad = 567 km s−1 in two Gaussians versus 702 km s−1 in three Gaussians; [Ne III] 306.6 versus 605.6 km s−1 in Table A.1). Since M_out and dM/dt scale linearly with this fraction, a plausible range of 20–80% would change the quoted rate by a factor of about 2.5 in each direction. The quoted interval 1.6–2.9 M⊙ yr−1 reflects only the two choices of v_out,max, not the flux-fraction uncertainty, even though the text claims that uncertainties include the fraction. I request a sensitivity analysis over the assumed broad fraction and, if possible, a direct decomposition of Pfα using the same fitting methodology as for [Ar II] and [Ne III].
  2. [Section 3.4.2 and Section 4] The interpretation of the unresolved broad nuclear components as a coherent outflow is not unique. The broad profiles and the high-velocity p-v features are all confined to the central unresolved region (≲0.35″ or 6 pc), so a radially expanding outflow, a turbulent AGN narrow-line region, a jet-cloud interaction, or scattered light from the AGN continuum could in principle produce similar unresolved kinematics. The paper's statement that the features are 'consistent with simulation predictions' is correct, but consistency with one class of simulations does not exclude these alternatives. Because the final summary claims 'clear evidence' of an outflow, the authors should either add diagnostics that distinguish a coherent outflow from a turbulent/broad-line region (e.g., line-ratio variations across the broad component, or a resolved velocity gradient in the broad component traced by [Ne III] where it is slightly more extended) or temper the claim to 'consistent with an outflow' throughout the abstract and summary.
  3. [Section 3.5] The statement that the mass outflow rate is a lower limit because the nuclear region is unresolved is not self-evident from the adopted formula dM/dt = 3 × M_out × v_out,max / R_out. If R_out is taken as the beam FWHM (6 pc) but the true emitting region is smaller, the rate would be higher, as stated; however, if part of the broad component is not outflowing gas, or if the assumed 50% flux fraction is an overestimate, the rate would be lower. The lower-limit claim is therefore contingent on the flux-fraction and geometry assumptions. Please specify the assumed physical radius explicitly and discuss how the result depends on it, or remove the unqualified 'lower limit' statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] 'The latter might be to related to gas streamers' contains a typo ('to related' should be 'related').
  2. [Section 2.1] 'we switched offthe background corrections' is missing a space; also the phrase 'switched off' is colloquial for a pipeline setting and could be rephrased as 'disabled'.
  3. [Section 3.3] In the sentence 'as infered from the neon line ratios,' 'infered' should be 'inferred'.
  4. [Figure 2] The label 'Pf' in the ch1 spectrum is ambiguous; using 'Pfα' in the figure would match the text and table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the outflow detection and mass-loss rate are derived from measured line profiles and an explicitly stated assumption, not from a model that presupposes the outflow.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on observed quantities: broad Gaussian components in [Ar II] and [Ne III] nuclear profiles, high-velocity wings in position-velocity diagrams, and velocity dispersion enhancements. These are direct measurements, not outputs of a model that assumes an outflow. The 3DBAROLO disk models are fitted to rotational kinematics first, and the residuals are then interpreted as noncircular motions; the model itself does not contain an outflow component. The mass outflow rate in Sect. 3.5 is an estimate, not a prediction: it combines the Pf alpha flux, an electron density from the [Ne V] line ratio, a maximum outflow velocity from [Ar II]/[Ne III], and an explicitly stated assumption that roughly half of the Pf alpha flux lies in a broad component. The paper's own sentence, 'approximately half of the flux is in the broad component as derived from the fits to the lines with two Gaussians', shows this is a transparent working assumption rather than a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The formula dM/dt = 3 M_out v_out/R_out is cited to Hermosa Muñoz et al. (2025) with references therein, which is methodological self-citation rather than load-bearing circularity. The comparison with jet simulations and the energy budget uses external literature values for jet power and AGN luminosity. The acknowledged uncertainties (faint Pf alpha, unresolved nuclear region, possible alternative interpretations such as a turbulent NLR or jet-cloud interaction) are limitations of the analysis, not circular steps. No derived quantity is presupposed by the input data or by the cited methodology.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central outflow detection is observational, but quantifying it requires an assumed flux fraction, a single-density estimate, an unresolved radius, and a standard outflow formula; the disk modeling adds fitted kinematic parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Broad flux fraction in Pf alpha (outflow component) = 0.5 (assumed)
    Sec. 3.5. Pf alpha cannot be kinematically decomposed; the paper assumes half the nuclear Pf alpha flux is in the broad outflow component based on [Ar II]/[Ne III]. Mass outflow rate scales linearly with this fraction.
  • Electron density n_e = 868 cm^-3
    Sec. 3.5. Derived from the [Ne V] 14.32/24.32 ratio with pyneb. Used to convert Pf alpha flux to ionized mass; assumes a single density and standard atomic data.
  • Outflow radius R_out = 0.35 arcsec (6 pc)
    Sec. 3.5. Taken as the FWHM of the unresolved nuclear source. The mass outflow rate is inversely proportional to R_out; the paper calls the rate a lower limit.
  • Outflow maximum velocity recipe = v_out = |Delta v| + 2 sigma_broad; 1183 and 652 km/s for [Ar II] and [Ne III]
    Sec. 3.5. Adopted from Hermosa Muñoz et al. (2025). The [Ne III]-based value underestimates the line wings because the two-Gaussian fit does not capture them.
  • 3DBAROLO kinematic parameters (PA_maj, i, v_rot, sigma_gas, v_RAD) = varied per radial ring (see Fig. A.5)
    Sec. 3.4. Fitted to the data cubes to model rotation and noncircular motion; residuals are then ascribed to a warp, streamers, or outflow. These parameters are used for the kinematic interpretation rather than for the mass outflow rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The broad Gaussian components in [Ar II] and [Ne III] trace a coherent outflow of ionized gas.
    Entered in Sect. 3.1 and 3.5. If the broad component is instead AGN NLR, jet-cloud emission, or scattered light, the outflow detection and the derived v_out values would not follow.
  • domain assumption The outflow geometry follows dM_out/dt = 3 M_out v_out / R_out.
    Sec. 3.5. Standard spherical or cone outflow formula imported from Hermosa Muñoz et al. (2025); no geometry-independent calibration is provided for Cen A.
  • domain assumption The distance to Cen A is 3.5 Mpc, with 1 arcsec = 17 pc.
    Sec. 1, from Neumayer et al. (2007). All physical sizes, masses, and rates scale with this distance.
  • domain assumption L_bol(AGN) = 1-4e43 erg/s and P_jet = 1-2e43 erg/s from prior literature.
    Secs. 1 and 3.5. Used to argue that both mechanisms can supply enough energy and momentum; the values carry literature uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The disk scale height is fixed to 0.5 arcsec (20 pc) in the 3DBAROLO models.
    Sec. 3.4. Based on Espada et al. (2017). This affects the kinematic model residuals and the inferred noncircular motions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MICONIC: JWST/MIRI MRS reveals a fast ionized gas outflow in the central region of Centaurus A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFUEEYHV

@misc{pith2026250615286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MICONIC: JWST/MIRI MRS reveals a fast ionized gas outflow in the central region of Centaurus A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFUEEYHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15286}
}
abstract

We present a kinematical study of the ionized and molecular gas in the central region (~7-14"~100-200pc) of the nearby radio galaxy Cen A. We used JWST/MIRI MRS 5-28$\mu$m observations taken as part of the MIR Characterization of Nearby Iconic galaxy Centers (MICONIC) of the MIRI EC. The two gas phases present contrasting morphologies and kinematics. The brightest emission from the ionized gas, traced with a range of IP lines ([Fe II] to [Ne VI]), is extended along the direction of the radio jet. We also detected emission from low IP emission lines and H$_2$ transitions in the galaxy disk. Both gas phases present rotational motions but also complex kinematics. The observations reveal several ionized gas kinematical features that are consistent with simulation predictions of a jet-driven bubble and outflow interacting with the galaxy ISM. These include broad components in the nuclear line profiles ($\sigma$~600km/s), high velocities (~ +1000, -1400km/s) confined within the nuclear region, velocities of hundreds of km/s in several directions in the central 2", and enhanced velocity dispersions perpendicular to the radio jet. Moreover, we find evidence of shock excitation in the nuclear region based on MIR line ratios. We compared the ionized gas mass outflow rate with Cen A's AGN luminosity and radio jet power and demonstrate that both mechanisms provide sufficient energy to launch the outflow. The noncircular motions observed in the H$_2$ lines can be reproduced with either a warped rotating disk model or a radial component. The latter might be to related to gas streamers detected in cold molecular gas. There is no clear indication of a fast nuclear H$_2$ outflow, only a weak blueshifted component. This could be due to a relatively low nuclear warm H$_2$ column density and/or the limited geometrical coupling of Cen A's inner radio jet with the circumnuclear disk of the galaxy. (Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spitzer/IRAC image at 8 µm of the central ∼ 3.7 ′ ×3.4 ′ region of Cen A. The footprints of the MIRI-MRS observations (blue rectangles) are shown. Orientation is north up, east to the left. Figure generated with the Astronomer’s Proposal Tool (APT) version 2025.1. molecular gas is distributed in several components, including a circumnuclear disk (CND) with a projected size of 20′′ × 10′′, a 9 ′′ × 6 ′′ nuclear ring … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MIRI-MRS spectra of Cen A extracted as a point source for ch1 (upper left), ch2 (upper right), ch3 (lower left), and ch4 (lower right). The lines mark fine-structure emission lines (blue and green), hydrogen recombination lines (red), and rotational H2 0–0 lines (magenta) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maps of H2 S(5) at 6.909 µm (top) and H2 S(1) at 17.03 µm (bottom) constructed as explained in Sect. 2.2. Panels show the intensity and contours in a square root scale in arbitrary units (left), the mean-velocity field in units of km s−1 (middle), and the velocity disp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maps of the [Ne v]/[Ne ii] (left) and [Ne iii]/[Ne ii] (right) ratios from the alucine intensity maps computed with a single Gaussian. Some structure in the form of diffraction rings from the unresolved emission can be seen around the AGN position. 0.5 0.0 0.5 log([NeI…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diagnostic diagram [Ne v]/[Ne ii] versus [Ne iii]/[Ne ii] compar￾ing Cen A’s nuclear ratios with literature Seyferts, type 2 QSOs, and LLAGNs. For IC 5063 we include the nuclear and integrated 2–3 kpc ratios. The shock+AGN model track (solid red line) is from Feltre et…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Velocity field of the 3DBAROLO rotating disk model (left) fit to the H2 S(5) transition and residuals computed by subtracting the model from the 3DBAROLO moment 1 map (right). Bottom: Same as top but including a vRAD component in the model. Orientation, color sca…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: P-v diagrams extracted along the kinematic major axis (top) and minor axis (bottom) for [Arii]. The disk model does not include a vRAD component. Colors and contours as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Theoretical Diagnostics for the Physical Conditions in Active Galactic Nuclei under the View of JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    New mid-IR line diagnostics from MAPPINGS V models to measure physical conditions in AGN for JWST.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    & Morisset , C

    Alarie , A. & Morisset , C. 2019, , 55, 377

    2019

  4. [4]

    G., Groves , B

    Allen , M. G., Groves , B. A., Dopita , M. A., Sutherland , R. S., & Kewley , L. J. 2008, , 178, 20

    2008

  5. [5]

    2024, , 690, A95

    Alonso Herrero , A., Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Labiano , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A95

    2024

  6. [6]

    J., Rieke , G

    Alonso-Herrero , A., Rieke , M. J., Rieke , G. H., & Ruiz , M. 1997, , 482, 747

    1997

  7. [7]

    2023, , 672, A108

    \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Labiano , A., Guillard , P., et al. 2023, , 672, A108

    2023

  8. [8]

    R., et al

    Argyriou , I., Glasse , A., Law , D. R., et al. 2023, , 675, A111

    2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    2023, , 942, L37

    Armus , L., Lai , T., U , V., et al. 2023, , 942, L37

    2023

  2. [10]

    M., Sip o cz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip o cz, B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  3. [11]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  4. [12]

    2019, , 632, A33

    Audibert , A., Combes , F., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2019, , 632, A33

    2019

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Banzatti , A., Salyk , C., Pontoppidan , K. M., et al. 2025, , 169, 165

    2025

  6. [14]

    2011, , 531, A70

    Beckmann , V., Jean , P., Lubi \'n ski , P., Soldi , S., & Terrier , R. 2011, , 531, A70

    2011

  7. [15]

    V., Sutherland , R

    Bicknell , G. V., Sutherland , R. S., & Neumayer , N. 2013, , 766, 36

    2013

  8. [16]

    P., R \'o \.z a \'n ska , A., et al

    Borkar , A., Adhikari , T. P., R \'o \.z a \'n ska , A., et al. 2021, , 500, 3536

    2021

  9. [17]

    S., et al

    Borodina , O., Ni , Y., Bennett , J. S., et al. 2025, , 981, 149

    2025

  10. [18]

    2025, , arXiv:2502.10271 (in press)

    Buiten , V., van der Werf , P., Viti , S., et al. 2025, , arXiv:2502.10271 (in press)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    2023

  12. [20]

    2022, , 664, A135

    Cazzoli , S., Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., M \'a rquez , I., et al. 2022, , 664, A135

    2022

  13. [21]

    2018, , 480, 1106

    Cazzoli , S., M \'a rquez , I., Masegosa , J., et al. 2018, , 480, 1106

    2018

  14. [22]

    A., Burns , J

    Clarke , D. A., Burns , J. O., & Norman , M. L. 1992, , 395, 444

    1992

  15. [23]

    2015, , 578, A48

    Colina , L., Piqueras L \'o pez , J., Arribas , S., et al. 2015, , 578, A48

    2015

  16. [24]

    H., Riffel , R

    Costa-Souza , J. H., Riffel , R. A., Souza-Oliveira , G. L., et al. 2024, , 974, 127

    2024

  17. [25]

    2015, , 582, A63

    Cresci , G., Marconi , A., Zibetti , S., et al. 2015, , 582, A63

    2015

  18. [26]

    H., Kraft , R

    Croston , J. H., Kraft , R. P., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2009, , 395, 1999

    2009

  19. [27]

    M., Paraschos , G

    Dasyra , K. M., Paraschos , G. F., Combes , F., et al. 2024, , 977, 156

    2024

  20. [28]

    2024, , 689, A263

    Davies , R., Shimizu , T., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A263

    2024

  21. [29]

    Di Teodoro , E. M. & Fraternali , F. 2015, , 451, 3021

    2015

  22. [30]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Dicken , D., Rieke , G., Ressler , M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , & M. D. Perrin , 121802R

    2022

  23. [31]

    1999, , 516, 769

    Eckart , A., Wild , W., & Ageorges , N. 1999, , 516, 769

    1999

  24. [32]

    E., et al

    Espada , D., Matsushita , S., Miura , R. E., et al. 2017, , 843, 136

    2017

  25. [33]

    2009, , 695, 116

    Espada , D., Matsushita , S., Peck , A., et al. 2009, , 695, 116

    2009

  26. [34]

    2025, , 693, A174

    Esparza-Arredondo , D., Ramos Almeida , C., Audibert , A., et al. 2025, , 693, A174

    2025

  27. [35]

    & Quataert , E

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. & Quataert , E. 2012, , 425, 605

    2012

  28. [36]

    2023, , 675, A74

    Feltre , A., Gruppioni , C., Marchetti , L., et al. 2023, , 675, A74

    2023

  29. [37]

    R., et al

    Garc \' a-Bernete , I., Rigopoulou , D., Donnan , F. R., et al. 2024, , 691, A162

    2024

  30. [38]

    2021, , 652, A98

    Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Alonso-Herrero , A., Ramos Almeida , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A98

    2021

  31. [39]

    2014, , 567, A125

    Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Usero , A., et al. 2014, , 567, A125

    2014

  32. [40]

    Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Hicks , E. K. S., Alonso-Herrero , A., et al. 2024, , 689, A347

    2024

  33. [41]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Abbott , R., et al. 2023, , 135, 068001

    2023

  34. [42]

    C., et al

    Gasman , D., Argyriou , I., Sloan , G. C., et al. 2023, , 673, A102

    2023

  35. [43]

    2024, , 966, 204

    Goold , K., Seth , A., Molina , M., et al. 2024, , 966, 204

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., Worrall , D

    Hardcastle , M. J., Worrall , D. M., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2003, , 593, 169

    2003

  37. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  38. [46]

    Harrison , C. M. & Ramos Almeida , C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17

    2024

  39. [47]

    2025, , 693, A321

    Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Alonso-Herrero , A., Labiano , A., et al. 2025, , 693, A321

    2025

  40. [48]

    2024 a , , 690, A350

    Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Alonso-Herrero , A., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2024 a , , 690, A350

    2024

  41. [49]

    2024 b , , 683, A43

    Hermosa Mu \ n oz , L., Cazzoli , S., M \'a rquez , I., et al. 2024 b , , 683, A43

    2024

  42. [50]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  43. [51]

    N., Jahnke , K., et al

    Husemann , B., Bennert , V. N., Jahnke , K., et al. 2019, , 879, 75

    2019

  44. [52]

    Israel , F. P. 1998, , 8, 237

    1998

  45. [53]

    2007, , 374, 385

    Krajnovi \'c , D., Sharp , R., & Thatte , N. 2007, , 374, 385

    2007

  46. [54]

    Law , D. R., E. Morrison , J., Argyriou , I., et al. 2023, , 166, 45

    2023

  47. [55]

    Luridiana , V., Morisset , C., & Shaw , R. A. 2015, , 573, A42

    2015

  48. [56]

    2004, , 354, 892

    Maciejewski , W. 2004, , 354, 892

    2004

  49. [57]

    2025, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2503.24359 ]

    Marconcini , C., Marconi , A., Cresci , G., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2503.24359 ]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J., Koekemoer , A., et al

    Marconi , A., Schreier , E. J., Koekemoer , A., et al. 2000, , 528, 276

    2000

  51. [59]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi , M., Mukherjee , D., Wagner , A. Y., et al. 2022, , 516, 766

    2022

  52. [60]

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

    2015

  53. [61]

    E., Dicken , D., Argyriou , I., et al

    Morrison , J. E., Dicken , D., Argyriou , I., et al. 2023, , 135, 075004

    2023

  54. [62]

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

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

    2016

  55. [63]

    V., Wagner , A

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

    2018

  56. [64]

    G., Eilek , J

    Neff , S. G., Eilek , J. A., & Owen , F. N. 2015, , 802, 87

    2015

  57. [65]

    2007, , 671, 1329

    Neumayer , N., Cappellari , M., Reunanen , J., et al. 2007, , 671, 1329

    2007

  58. [66]

    R., et al

    Patapis , P., Argyriou , I., Law , D. R., et al. 2024, , 682, A53

    2024

  59. [67]

    2023, , 675, A58

    Peralta de Arriba , L., Alonso-Herrero , A., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2023, , 675, A58

    2023

  60. [68]

    2022, , 665, L11

    Pereira-Santaella , M., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Garc \' a-Bernete , I., et al. 2022, , 665, L11

    2022

  61. [69]

    M., Salyk , C., Banzatti , A., et al

    Pontoppidan , K. M., Salyk , C., Banzatti , A., et al. 2024, , 963, 158

    2024

  62. [70]

    C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., Green , J

    Quillen , A. C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., Green , J. D., et al. 2008, , 384, 1469

    2008

  63. [71]

    C., Brookes , M

    Quillen , A. C., Brookes , M. H., Keene , J., et al. 2006, , 645, 1092

    2006

  64. [72]

    C., de Zeeuw , P

    Quillen , A. C., de Zeeuw , P. T., Phinney , E. S., & Phillips , T. G. 1992, , 391, 121

    1992

  65. [73]

    C., Neumayer , N., Oosterloo , T., & Espada , D

    Quillen , A. C., Neumayer , N., Oosterloo , T., & Espada , D. 2010, , 27, 396

    2010

  66. [74]

    2025, , arXiv:2504.01595 (in press)

    Ramos Almeida , C., Garcia-Bernete , I., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2025, , arXiv:2504.01595 (in press)

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    H., Wright , G

    Rieke , G. H., Wright , G. S., B \"o ker , T., et al. 2015, , 127, 584

    2015

  68. [76]

    Rodr \' guez-Ardila , A., Riffel , R., & Pastoriza , M. G. 2005, , 364, 1041

    2005

  69. [77]

    2024, , 970, 69

    Roy , N., Heckman , T., Overzier , R., et al. 2024, , 970, 69

    2024

  70. [78]

    & Meadows , V

    Simpson , C. & Meadows , V. 1998, , 505, L99

    1998

  71. [79]

    L., & Bonatto , C

    Storchi-Bergmann , T., Bica , E., Kinney , A. L., & Bonatto , C. 1997, , 290, 231

    1997

  72. [80]

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

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

    2022

  73. [81]

    2022, , 940, L5

    U , V., Lai , T., Bianchin , M., et al. 2022, , 940, L5

    2022

  74. [82]

    2021, , 648, A17

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

    2021

  75. [83]

    W., Glasse , A., et al

    Wells , M., Pel , J. W., Glasse , A., et al. 2015, , 127, 646

    2015

  76. [84]

    S., Rieke , G

    Wright , G. S., Rieke , G. H., Glasse , A., et al. 2023, , 135, 048003

    2023

  77. [85]

    S., Wright , D., Goodson , G

    Wright , G. S., Wright , D., Goodson , G. B., et al. 2015, , 127, 595

    2015

  78. [86]

    H., Hardcastle , M

    Wykes , S., Croston , J. H., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A19

    2013

  79. [87]

    Zhang , L., Packham , C., Hicks , E. K. S., et al. 2024, , 974, 195

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.