Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Observational biases on rotation curves from IFU data at cosmic noon

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that cosmological surface brightness dimming and loss of resolution make cosmic-noon rotation curves look smaller, smoother, and more symmetric than the true kinematics, so these curves may not be reliable for dynamical…

desk verdict A credible cautionary result that cosmic noon rotation curves look smoother than they are, weakened by a missing matched-radius control that muddies the quantitative claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10544 v1 pith:GBBIW6VE submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.GA

Amanda E. de Araujo-Carvalho , Thiago S. Gonçalves , Davor Krajnović , Karín Menéndez-Delmestre , Natanael de Isídio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords rotationcurvescosmicnoonLymanBreakAnalogscosmologicalsurfacebrightnessdimmingintegralfieldspectroscopybeamsmearinggalaxykinematicsdarkmatter
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 asks whether the declining rotation curves reported for star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon are genuine or an observational mirage. It takes 19 local Lyman Break Analogs, which resemble the clumpy, interacting galaxies seen at z~2, and artificially pushes them to z≈2.2 through mock integral-field observations that reproduce surface brightness dimming, adaptive-optics point-spread functions, and sensitivity. Comparing the real low-redshift kinematics with the mocked cosmic-noon kinematics, it finds the mocked galaxies look smaller, smoother, and substantially more symmetric than their true progenitors, and their second velocity moment no longer traces the same gravitational potential. The conclusion is that cosmic-noon rotation curves may appear well behaved simply because of observational bias, so they should be used with caution when estimating dark matter.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a mock-observation pipeline that relocates actual IFU data of 19 Lyman Break Analogs from $z\approx0.2$ to $z\approx2.2$. It rebins flux maps to the angular diameter distance at the new redshift, applies the $(1+z)^{-4}$ cosmological dimming, convolves with Gaussian cores and halos representing adaptive-optics and seeing profiles, adds sky background and noise, and matches OSIRIS and SINFONI spaxel scales and integration times. Two asymmetry diagnostics then quantify the effect: a quadratic-polynomial fit to each side of the rotation curve that yields $\Delta\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}}$ following the method used in the cosmic-noon studies being tested, and a Fourier harmonic expansion of the velocity field via Kinemetry, whose higher-order terms normalized by the dominant coefficient $B_1$ give $v_{\mathrm{asym}}$. A final check compares $V_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{V_{\mathrm{rot}}^2+\sigma^2}$ between the real and mocked data as a proxy for the gravitational potential traced by the kinematics.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to obtain high-resolution, deep IFU data of the same galaxy, or a statistical twin, at z≈2.2 that resolves the outer disk and reaches the faint surface brightness levels of the low-redshift data; if the rotation curve then remains smooth and declining and the asymmetry stays as low as in the mocks, the paper's attribution of those features to bias would be overturned, whereas recovery of the asymmetric, extended rotation curve would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the combined effects of cosmological surface brightness dimming (surface brightness scaling as $(1+z)^{-4}$) and loss of spatial resolution imprint a systematic bias on rotation curves at cosmic noon. For the same galaxies, the asymmetry quantified by the quadratic-fit $\Delta\chi^2_{\mathrm{red}}$ drops from a mean of 158.05 at $z\approx0.2$ to 2.81 in the AO-assisted mocked observations and 33.04 in the seeing-limited mocked observations; the Kinemetry-based asymmetry $v_{\mathrm{asym}}$ is also smaller at $z\approx2.2$. The AO-mocked curves reach only about 1.5 times shorter radii than the real ones, and the estimated inclinations appear more face-on. The second velocity moment $V_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{V_{\mathrm{rot}}^2+\sigma^2}$ of the mocked galaxies does not follow a 1:1 relation with the low-redshift data, indicating that the observed kinematics trace a biased version of the gravitational potential. The paper therefore concludes that rotation curves of distant galaxies might not be reliable enough for dynamical modeling and estimating dark matter properties.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mock observations faithfully reproduce how real OSIRIS and SINFONI data at z≈2.2 would look, including surface brightness dimming, point spread, and sensitivity, so the reduced asymmetry in the mocked data is a real observational bias and not an artifact of the simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reported declining rotation curves at cosmic noon cannot, by themselves, be read as evidence for a small dark matter fraction in distant halos.
  • Galaxies that are actually interacting or merging will often be classified as smooth, symmetric, rotation-dominated systems when viewed at z≈2, biasing samples toward cold-disk interpretations.
  • Dynamical modeling of cosmic-noon galaxies needs to incorporate the bias, for example through forward-modelling of realistic mock observations, rather than correcting only for beam smearing.
  • Because asymmetry grows toward galaxy outskirts, stacked rotation curves from co-added faint data may not recover the true outer profile, as the faint asymmetric signal is partly random.
  • Future high-resolution IFU observations with ELT-class instruments are needed to separate the intrinsic shape of the cosmic-noon rotation curve from the observational bias.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same mock-observation apparatus could be applied to other high-redshift kinematic tracers, such as CO or [CII] emission, to see whether the bias is tracer-dependent or universal.
  • Editorial extension: if the bias is as strong as reported, part of the scatter in derived V/σ and dark matter fractions across cosmic-noon surveys may reflect differences in resolution and depth rather than differences in galaxy physics.
  • Editorial extension: a quantitative prediction implied by the paper is that recovering the true outer rotation curve of a z≈2 galaxy requires reaching surface brightnesses below what current AO-assisted IFUs achieve; this can be tested with planned deeper observations.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. Using 19 Lyman Break Analogs at z ~ 0.2 observed with OSIRIS, the authors construct artificial z ~ 2.2 observations mimicking OSIRIS with adaptive optics and SINFONI without adaptive optics, then extract rotation curves and quantify asymmetry via a reduced chi-squared metric (following Übler et al. 2021) and a kinemetry-based vasym metric (Shapiro et al. 2008). They find that the mocked cosmic noon curves are shorter, smoother, and less asymmetric than the original low-z curves, that asymmetry in low-z LBAs increases with radius, and that the second velocity moment Vrms is not conserved under the mock transformations. They conclude that cosmic noon rotation curves may be biased by cosmological dimming and resolution loss and may not reliably trace the gravitational potential.

Significance. If the radial-matching concern is resolved, the paper provides a useful cautionary demonstration using a well-motivated local analog population. Its strengths include using two independent asymmetry diagnostics, connecting the measured asymmetry values to the Übler et al. (2021) sample, and making velocity maps and rotation curves available. The analysis is not circular: it does not fit parameters to produce its conclusion, and it makes falsifiable predictions about how asymmetry metrics should change under realistic redshift degradation. The main limitations are that the mock observations are inherited from Gonçalves et al. (2010) without independent validation in this work, and that the current asymmetry comparison mixes radial truncation with intrinsic smoothing effects, which is the critical issue for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figs. 3, 6, 8] The comparison of Δχ²_red between low-z and mocked curves is not matched in radial extent. Mock OSIRIS curves are on average 1.5 times shorter than the low-z curves (Fig. 8), and Fig. 6 shows that low-z asymmetry increases with radius (Spearman ρ ≈ 0.84). Since Δχ²_red is computed over the sampled radial range and depends on the number of data points and the baseline, the lower mock values may simply reflect the fact that the high-asymmetry outer regions are not sampled. The paper needs a matched-radius comparison, such as truncating the low-z curves at the maximum radius of each mock or evaluating Δχ²_red in common radial bins, to separate the claim that the mocks are intrinsically smoother from the trivial statement that we see less of the galaxy at cosmic noon.
  2. [§2.4] The mocked SINFONI observations do not include cosmological surface brightness dimming; the text states that the dimming is expected to be offset by the instrument's higher sensitivity, so "no extra corrections for cosmological dimming were applied." This means the SINFONI mock isolates resolution and beam-smearing effects only, whereas the OSIRIS mock includes dimming. Consequently, the comparison between the two mocks (e.g., Figs. 10 and 11) conflates instrument sensitivity with the inclusion of dimming, and the summary statement about the "combined effects of cosmological dimming and low resolution" is not directly supported for the SINFONI branch. The authors should either include dimming in the SINFONI mock with an appropriate sensitivity model or explicitly frame the SINFONI result as testing only resolution effects.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (3)] The reported Δχ²_red mean values (158.05, 2.81, 33.04) are quoted without per-galaxy uncertainties, bootstrap intervals, or a demonstration that the means are not driven by one or two outliers. Given the small sample size (15 low-z galaxies, fewer for mocked OSIRIS after the exclusions listed in §3.1), a paired or bootstrap analysis on the matched subsample is needed to assess the robustness of the central asymmetry reduction, especially because the radial-extent mismatch flagged above may affect individual galaxies to different degrees.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence "mergers and interactions causes more disturbance in galaxy's gravitational field" should be "mergers and interactions cause more disturbance in the galaxy's gravitational field."
  2. [§3.2] The text says "we find the χ2_red from eq. 2" but the reduced chi-squared is defined in Eq. (3); the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (3)] K is described only as "the degrees of freedom"; it would be clearer to define K explicitly (e.g., N minus the number of fitted parameters) so that the reduced nature of the statistic is unambiguous.
  4. [Table 1] Footnotes a and b both point to the same SDSS/DR7 URL; if the stellar mass and SFR catalogs are identical, the two footnotes should be collapsed into one.
  5. [§1, References] The citation "Tiley 2020" in the introduction refers to a Nature news item listed in the references as "Galaxy disk observed to have formed shortly after the Big Bang"; this is not an appropriate citation for the physical claim about disk evolution through mergers and accretion, and it should be replaced with the relevant primary literature.
  6. [§4, Figure captions] In the discussion, "LBAS" should be "LBAs," and in Figure 3 the caption "The blue dots refers" should be "The blue dots refer."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the asymmetry reduction is a measured consequence of the explicitly modeled observational biases, with a radial-baseline caveat.

full rationale

The paper's chain of reasoning is a forward simulation: real OSIRIS observations of 19 LBAs are artificially redshifted to z~2.2 by applying cosmic surface brightness dimming, PSF/Strehl degradation, sensitivity limits, and noise, and then asymmetry metrics are measured on the resulting velocity fields. No parameter is fitted to the reported asymmetry values, and the asymmetry metrics (Delta-chi-squared and kinemetry vasym) are independent observables derived from the maps. The central comparison is anchored externally: the paper's mean Delta-chi-squared for mocked OSIRIS observations is 2.81, which is close to the value 2.1 reported by Uebler et al. (2021) for real cosmic noon galaxies, and the SINFONI mock retains the outer regions yet still shows reduced asymmetry, indicating that the result is not purely a radial-truncation artifact. The reuse of Goncalves et al. (2010) for the mock observations and data is a normal use of prior data and code by an overlapping author; the simulation recipe is summarized in Section 2.4 and is not an imported uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz that encodes the target conclusion. The main caveat, noted in the paper itself, is that OSIRIS mock rotation curves are on average 1.5 times smaller and that low-z asymmetry increases with radius; this means the mean asymmetry comparison is not matched in radial baseline. That weakens the quantitative strength of the claim but does not make the derivation circular, because the directional effect is an expected consequence of the modeled biases rather than an equation-level equivalence to the inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the mock observations and the representativeness of LBAs, both inherited from prior work by the same group; no new free parameters are introduced in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lyman Break Analogs at z~0.2 are representative analogs of typical star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon in terms of kinematics and morphology.
    The entire mock comparison assumes that conclusions drawn from LBAs transfer to true cosmic noon galaxies. Cited from Heckman et al. 2005, Basu-Zych et al. 2009, Overzier et al. 2010 in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The mock observations from Gonçalves et al. (2010) faithfully reproduce OSIRIS/SINFONI observational conditions at z=2.2 (PSF, AO Strehl, sky background, cosmological dimming).
    The asymmetry reduction is attributed to observational bias; if the mocks are inaccurate, the conclusion fails. Described in Section 2.4.
  • domain assumption The employed asymmetry metrics (quadratic-fit reduced chi-square and kinemetry higher-order terms) are valid tracers of merger and interaction disturbances, and are comparable across different resolutions.
    The paper adopts these metrics from Übler et al. 2021 and Shapiro et al. 2008 and applies them to both low-z and mocked data without validating their resolution dependence. Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
  • domain assumption Inclination is reliably estimated from the assumed disk geometry even for irregular, merging galaxies, using find-galaxy.
    The deprojection in Eq. (1) uses inclinations that are systematically smaller at high-z; no correction is made for this bias. Section 3.1 and Figure 1.
  • domain assumption Vrms = sqrt(V^2 + sigma^2) approximates the gravitational potential energy for the warm gas, following Binney (2005) and Guérou et al. (2017).
    Used in Figure 11 to argue that cosmic noon galaxies do not trace the same potential as low-z galaxies. Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational biases on rotation curves from IFU data at cosmic noon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBBIW6VE

@misc{pith2026250710544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational biases on rotation curves from IFU data at cosmic noon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBBIW6VE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10544}
}
abstract

Through studying rotation curves, which depict how the velocity of the stars and gas changes with distance from the center of the galaxy, it has been confirmed that dark matter dominates galaxy's outer regions, as their rotation curve remains flat. However, recent studies of star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon have shown a decline in their rotation curve beyond a certain point, suggesting a decrease of the abundance of dark matter in galactic halos during earlier times. In this work, we investigate the influence of cosmological surface brightness dimming and loss of resolution on observations of rotation curves at cosmic noon. We used a sample of 19 Lyman Break Analogs at $z \approx 0.2$ and artificially redshifted them as if they were at $z \approx 2.2$. By comparing both rotation curves of the observed and mocked objects, we find that the asymmetry of the cosmic noon galaxies is smaller than that of the low-$z$ galaxies. In low-$z$ galaxies, asymmetry increases with radius and becomes relevant at the external parts, where mergers and interactions cause more disturbance in the galaxy's gravitational field. In contrast, cosmic-noon galaxies appear smoother, smaller, and suitable for dynamical modeling -- when in reality, they are not. The combined effects of the cosmological bias and loss of resolution lead us to the conclusion that caution should be exercised when using cosmic-noon rotation curves, as they might not accurately trace the gravitational potential of the galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Inclination estimated in low redshift galaxies versus inclination in cosmic noon galax￾ies. The blue dots refers to the mock observations made with OSIRIS using AO and the pink dots rep￾resents the mock observations with SINFONI. The gray line illustrates what we would observe if the inclination between both redshift regimes was the same. 2 https://pypi.org/project/mgefit/#mge-find-galaxy Due to the irregularity of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: From left to right velocity map of galaxy 210358 extracted from (original) Pa-α observations using OSIRIS instrument assisted by AO, followed by velocity map extracted for mocked OSIRIS Hα obser￾vations at z∼2.2, assisted by AO and lastly velocity map extracted for mocked SINFONI Hα observations at z∼2.2, without AO. The axes display the angular scale in arcseconds, maintaining a consistent orientation across a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measures of asymmetry in low redshift galaxies versus asymmetry in cosmic noon galaxies. The blue dots refers to the mock observations made with OSIRIS using AO and the magenta dots rep￾resents the mock observations with SINFONI. The gray line illustrates what we would observe if the asymmetry between both redshift regimes was the same. Considering a velocity map K(a, ψ), one can divide the velocity profile into ell… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity maps of the galaxy 210358 with blue dots representing the ellipses used in Kinemetry to extract the rotation curves.Left: Real data, Middle: Mock observation with OSIRIS at z∼ 2.2. Right: Mock observation with SINFONI at z ∼ 2.2. AO and can capture the externa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Rotation curve of galaxy 214500 extracted using Kinemetry. Right: Asymmetry curve extracted by summing the highest terms in the Fourier expansion. In both curves, the blue dots represents the real observations at z ≈ 0.2, the pink dots indicates the mocked OSIRIS…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Asymmetry of all LBAs normalized by its value at R/Reff = 0.25, plotted in function of the radius, normalized by the UV half-light radii obtained from HST data. Each color represent an LBA, with its name indicated in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measurements of mean velocity dis￾persion in low-redshift galaxies compared to those at cosmic noon, extracted using Kinemetry. Blue dots represent the mock observations with OSIRIS, while green dots correspond to mock observations with SINFONI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measures of Asymmetry in low redshift galaxies versus asymmetry in high redshift galax￾ies using the method described by Shapiro et al. (2008). The blue dots represents the artificially￾redshifted observations with OSIRIS and the pink dots the artificially-redshifted …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measures of second order velocity mo￾ment corrected for inclination Vrms = q V 2 rot + σ 2 between real and mocked observations - OSIRIS (yellow) and SINFONI (red). The black solid line corresponds to the equally kinematic systems. tential, determined by the mass dist…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1755, doi: 10.1086/427544

    doi:10.1086/427544 2005

  2. [2]

    L., Steidel, C

    Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 697, doi: 10.1086/426580

    work page doi:10.1086/426580 2005

  3. [3]

    2005, ApJL, 619, L43, doi: 10.1086/426733

    Arnouts, S., Schiminovich, D., Ilbert, O., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L43, doi: 10.1086/426733

    doi:10.1086/426733 2005

  4. [4]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 326, 23

    Bacon, R., Copin, Y., Monnet, G., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 326, 23

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    R., Schiminovich, D., Johnson, B

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Schiminovich, D., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 457, doi: 10.1086/521146

    doi:10.1086/521146 2007

  6. [6]

    R., Schiminovich, D., Heinis, S., et al

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Schiminovich, D., Heinis, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1307, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1307

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1307 2009

  7. [7]

    R., Gon¸ calves, T

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Gon¸ calves, T. S., Overzier, R., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, L118

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 363, 937

    Binney, J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 363, 937

    work page 2005

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    V., Croom, S

    Bloom, J. V., Croom, S. M., Bryant, J. J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty273

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    1981a, AJ, 86, 1791, doi: 10.1086/113062 Bosma,A

    Bosma, A. 1981a, AJ, 86, 1791, doi: 10.1086/113062 Bosma,A. 1981b, AJ, 86, 1825, doi: 10.1086/113063 Bouch´ e, N., Carfantan, H., Schroetter, I.,

    doi

  3. [11]

    2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 92 19 Bouch´ e, N

    Michel-Dansac, L., & Contini, T. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 92 19 Bouch´ e, N. F., Bera, S., Krajnovi´ c, D., et al. 2021, in SF2A-2021: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. A. Siebert, K. Bailli´ e, E. Lagadec, N...

    2015

  4. [12]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Genzel, R., et al

    Burkert, A., Schreiber, N. F., Genzel, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 214

    2016

  6. [14]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18174.x

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovi´ c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18174.x

    2011

  7. [15]

    Cecil, G., Fogarty, L. M. R., Richards, S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2643

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Vigeland, S

    Chakrabarti, S., Chang, P., Lam, M. T., Vigeland, S. J., & Quillen, A. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L26

    2021

  9. [17]

    L., Tacchella, S., ¨Ubler, H., et al

    Danhaive, A. L., Tacchella, S., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21863 de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2648, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2648 de Is´ ıdio, N. G., Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Gon¸ calves, T., et al. 2024, The Ast...

    2025

  10. [18]

    2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.04726

    Evans, C., Puech, M., Afonso, J., et al. 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.04726

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M., & Efstathiou, G

    Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/193.2.189

    1980 doi

  12. [20]

    Masters, K. L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f2 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1062, doi: 10.1086/504403 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2009, A...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    1988, PhD thesis, University of Leiden

    Franx, M. 1988, PhD thesis, University of Leiden

    1988

  14. [22]

    M.,¨Ubler, H., et al

    Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M.,¨Ubler, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 543, 397, doi: 10.1038/nature21685

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    H., ¨Ubler, H., et al

    Genzel, R., Price, S. H., ¨Ubler, H., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb0ea

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    B., Liu, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Jolly, J. B., Liu, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef1a Gon¸ calves, T. S., Basu-Zych, A., Overzier, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1373, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1373 Gu´ erou, A., Krajnovi´ c, D., Epinat, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A5, doi...

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Hoopes, C

    Heckman, T. M., Hoopes, C. G., Seibert, M., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, L35, doi: 10.1086/425979

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    G., Heckman, T

    Hoopes, C. G., Heckman, T. M., Salim, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 173, 441

    2007

  19. [28]

    C., Vergani, D., Romano, M., et al

    Jones, G. C., Vergani, D., Romano, M., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2226

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    S., et al

    Katz, H., Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 1648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3101

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 366, 787

    Copin, Y. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 366, 787

    2006

  22. [31]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Lang, P., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d82

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Larkin, J., Barczys, M., Krabbe, A., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 62691A, doi: 10.1117/12.672061

    2006 doi

  24. [33]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., & Erb, D. K. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 70

    2006

  25. [34]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 2057, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2057 20

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    G., et al

    Lelli, F., Zhang, Z.-Y., Bisbas, T. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245105

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 31 Mancera Pi˜ na, P

    Li, P., Lelli, F., McGaugh, S., & Schombert, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 31 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Fraternali, F., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3329 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Posti, L., Fraternali, F.,

    2020

  28. [37]

    A., & Oosterloo, T

    Adams, E. A., & Oosterloo, T. 2021a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A76 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Posti, L., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2021b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, L15 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Read, J. I., Kim, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv

    2025

  29. [38]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A70

    Marasco, A., Posti, L., Oman, K., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A70

    2020

  30. [39]

    S., Rubin, V

    McGaugh, S. S., Rubin, V. C., & De Blok, W. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 2381

    2001

  31. [40]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b0

    Mistele, T., McGaugh, S., Lelli, F., Schombert, J., & Li, P. 2024, ApJL, 969, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b0

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    2020, Nature, 581, 269

    Rafelski, M. 2020, Nature, 581, 269

    2020

  33. [42]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 1

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 1

    2019

  34. [43]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 471, L87

    Osman, O., & Bekki, K. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 471, L87

    2017

  35. [44]

    A., Heckman, T., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 710, 979

    2010

  36. [45]

    A., Heckman, T

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 203, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/203

    2009 doi

  37. [46]

    A., Heckman, T

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T. M., Wang, J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 726, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L7

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    Peebles, P. J. 1969, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, p. 393, 155, 393

    1969

  39. [48]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

    2018

  40. [49]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3196 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A56

    Posti, L., Fraternali, F., & Marasco, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A56

    2019

  42. [51]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 143

    Price, S., Shimizu, T., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 143

    2021

  43. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1966

    Puglisi, A., Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Swinbank, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1966

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    I., Walker, M

    Read, J. I., Walker, M. G., & Steger, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 1401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3404

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031020

    Ren, T., Kwa, A., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031020

    2019

  46. [55]

    2022, A&A, 667, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243582

    Rizzo, Kohandel, M., Pallottini, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243582

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2020, Nature, 584, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2572-6

    Rizzo, Vegetti, S., Powell, D., et al. 2020, Nature, 584, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2572-6

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    C., & Ford Jr, W

    Rubin, V. C., & Ford Jr, W. K. 1970, The Astrophysical Journal, 159, 379

    1970

  49. [58]

    Schreiber, N. M. F., Genzel, R., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364

    2009 doi

  50. [59]

    N., Price, S., Schreiber, N

    Shachar, A. N., Price, S., Schreiber, N. F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 78

    2023

  51. [60]

    L., Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Shapiro, K. L., Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 231, doi: 10.1086/587133

    2008 doi

  52. [61]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1886

    2015

  53. [62]

    Stevens, A. R. H., Croton, D. J., & Mutch, S. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1332

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 493, 871

    Swaters, R., Sancisi, R., Van Albada, T., & Van Der Hulst, J. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 493, 871

    2009

  55. [64]

    A., Madore, B

    Swaters, R. A., Madore, B. F., & Trewhella, M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, L107, doi: 10.1086/312540

    2000 doi

  56. [65]

    M., Harrison, C

    Swinbank, A. M., Harrison, C. M., Trayford, J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 3140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx201

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    D., & Fraternali, F

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

    2015

  58. [67]

    2020, Galaxy disk observed to have formed shortly after the Big Bang, Nature Publishing Group UK London 21

    Tiley, A. 2020, Galaxy disk observed to have formed shortly after the Big Bang, Nature Publishing Group UK London 21

    2020

  59. [68]

    L., Swinbank, A

    Tiley, A. L., Swinbank, A. M., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz428 Tim de Zeeuw, P., Bureau, M., Emsellem, E., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 329, 513 ¨Ubler, H., Genel, S., Sternberg, A., et al. 2021, Month...

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    R., Croom, S

    Varidel, M. R., Croom, S. M., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4024

    2019

  61. [70]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518

    2014

  62. [71]

    2014, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 177, doi: 10.1038/nature13316

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    White, S. D. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38, doi: 10.1086/162573

    1984 doi

  65. [74]

    F., Wuyts, S., et al

    Wisnioski, E., Schreiber, N. F., Wuyts, S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 209

    2015

  66. [75]

    M., Fossati, M., et al

    Wisnioski, E., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Fossati, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4db8

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    Y., Wang, T., Elbaz, D., et al

    Xiao, M. Y., Wang, T., Elbaz, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142843

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    Zavala, J., & Frenk, C. S. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 81

    2019

  69. [78]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2409 22 APPENDIX A

    Zhu, L., van den Bosch, R., van de Ven, G., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2409 22 APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL ROTATION CURVES From Figure A.1 to A.8, we present the velocity maps and corresponding rotation curves fo...

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.