Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Low-redshift analogues of cosmic noon galaxies as laboratories for clumpy star formation

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Star-forming clumps in nearby Lyman-break analog galaxies have radii of a few hundred parsecs, and apparent kiloparsec-scale clumps at high redshift are inflated by clustering and resolution.

desk verdict New 84-clump LBA census that is worth citing; the redshift-simulation test is underdescribed, but the size-inflation claim leans on Fisher et al. and likely survives revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11492 v1 pith:RR47URNF submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.GA

Jorge M. Santos-Junior , Thiago S. Goncalves , Luidhy Santana-Silva , Arianna Cortesi , Karin Menendez-Delmestre , Amanda E. de Araujo-Carvalho This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-breakanaloggalaxiesstar-formingclumpsclumpclusteringartificialredshiftsimulationadaptiveopticsintegralfieldspectroscopyPa-alphaemissionsizescosmicnoon
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 uses 18 nearby Lyman-break analog galaxies, compact starbursts at z~0.1-0.2 that mimic cosmic noon conditions, to measure star-forming clumps at hundreds of parsec resolution. It finds 84 clumps with radii of a few hundred parsecs, low velocity shear (~12 km/s), and high velocity dispersion (~70 km/s). The key test is artificial redshift: when the same datacubes are degraded to z=2.2, clump counts drop from 84 to 17 and every matched clump appears larger even after correcting for resolution. The paper concludes that kpc-scale clump sizes reported in many high-redshift studies are inflated by clump clustering and coarse resolution, not intrinsic to the clumps.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the artificial redshift simulation, which takes the observed LBA Pa-alpha datacubes and reprojects them to z=2.2 using the same OSIRIS IFU spaxel scale, PSF, noise level, and cosmological surface-brightness dimming as real high-redshift observations. Clumps are identified with the FellWalker clump-finding algorithm, sizes are measured by fitting Gaussians to the spatial flux profiles, and a clump is considered resolved only if its measured radius exceeds 1.2 times the PSF FWHM. This simulation isolates what clustering plus finite resolution do to measured clump sizes, and the comparison between the low-z and simulated high-z measurements is what carries the paper's central conclusion.

What would settle it

Take one of the 18 LBAs, degrade its cube to z=2.2 with substantially better PSF or with matched real z~2 H-alpha AO observations, identify clumps with the same FellWalker settings, and check whether the radii still exceed the few-hundred-parsec intrinsic values; if they no longer do, the inflation claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that star-forming clumps in cosmic noon galaxies are intrinsically sub-kiloparsec structures, and that the kiloparsec-scale clump sizes seen in many high-redshift surveys are observational artifacts. In the 18 Lyman-break analogs, 84 Pa-alpha clumps are identified with the FellWalker algorithm, of which 38 are resolved; their radii cluster at a few hundred parsecs. When the observed datacubes are artificially redshifted to z=2.2, the number of detectable clumps falls to 17, and all 16 matched clumps show larger radii even after quadratic subtraction of the larger PSF FWHM. The paper interprets this as the clump clustering effect: at lower resolution, blends of several small clumps are detected as one large clump, which also raises the apparent integrated SFR per clump. The measured clump kinematics, with velocity shear much weaker than velocity dispersion, indicate dynamically hot, non-virialized structures, and the dynamical masses typically exceed gas masses inferred from the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation, pointing to pressure support or feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The artificial-redshift pipeline produces cubes whose resolution, noise, surface-brightness dimming, and clump-detection behavior match real z=2.2 observations; if it does not, the measured size increase and the clustering conclusion do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If cosmic noon clumps are intrinsically sub-kiloparsec, high-redshift surveys without adaptive optics or lensing systematically overestimate clump sizes and the SFR of individual clumps because blended clusters are counted as single objects.
  • The reduction from 84 clumps at low redshift to 17 at simulated z=2.2 implies that high-redshift samples are detecting clustered groups of clumps, not individual star-forming regions.
  • The low velocity shear and high velocity dispersion of the resolved clumps imply they are not virialized, with velocity dispersion likely boosted by star formation feedback.
  • Dynamical masses exceeding gas masses from the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation suggest that clump dynamics include pressure or turbulent support beyond the gas surface density inferred from star formation.
  • The agreement of LBA clump sizes with lensed few-hundred-parsec samples supports the use of low-redshift analogs as anchors for interpreting cosmic noon observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, the same clustering bias likely inflates other morphological measurements at high redshift, such as clump surface densities, clump mass estimates, and the apparent compactness of star-forming regions, not just radii.
  • If kpc-scale clump sizes are artifacts, models of giant clump migration and bulge growth that assume kpc-scale clumps may need to operate on sub-kiloparsec clumps or invoke a different accretion and coalescence scale.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same artificial-redshift pipeline to lensed JWST clump samples at different redshifts, mapping how apparent clump size grows with decreasing resolution and providing a quantitative correction for unresolved high-z surveys.
  • The prediction that real z~2 clumps observed with 30-40 meter class adaptive optics or gravitational lensing should show few-hundred-parsec radii, matching the simulated appearances, could be checked once such data are available.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents OSIRIS/Keck Pa-alpha IFU observations of 18 Lyman Break Analogs at z~0.1-0.2, identifies 84 star-forming clumps using the FellWalker algorithm followed by Gaussian profile fits, and measures clump radii (a few hundred pc), velocity shear (~12 km/s), velocity dispersion (~70 km/s), gas masses, and dynamical masses. The authors then artificially redshift the datacubes to z=2.2 and report that clump radii increase even after correcting for the larger FWHM, leading to the central claim that high-redshift kpc-scale clump sizes are inflated by clump clustering and limited resolution. The paper also compares the low- and simulated-high-redshift clump properties with literature samples and argues that LBAs are valuable laboratories for studying clumpy star formation at cosmic noon.

Significance. If the size-inflation result holds, it would help resolve a long-standing discrepancy between AO- and lensing-resolved clump sizes and seeing-limited high-redshift measurements, and it would strengthen the case for using LBAs as local laboratories for cosmic noon studies. The study has concrete strengths: a moderately large AO sample, a clearly described two-step clump-finding procedure, and an explicit attempt to simulate the observational bias rather than only speculate about it. However, the central claim rests on an underspecified simulation, and the absence of uncertainties on radii and masses limits the quantitative force of the conclusions. The paper is a useful empirical contribution but requires revision before its headline conclusion is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Figure 8] The artificial-redshift simulation is described only as spatial smoothing to the OSIRIS resolution and spaxel scale, flux rescaling via Halpha, and a 'quadratic correction' for FWHM. The manuscript does not state how noise was injected, whether sky-noise-limited conditions appropriate to z~2 were simulated, how the S/N=6 spaxel threshold and the FellWalker parameters in Table 2 were re-evaluated on the degraded cubes, or how the 16 corresponding clumps in Figure 8 were matched to the low-z clumps. Because the central claim that high-z clump sizes are inflated rests on this simulation, please provide the full recipe and a quantitative matched-sample test (e.g., sign test or bootstrap on radius ratios) rather than the deterministic statement that all matched clumps increased in radius.
  2. [Table 3, Figure 8] Clump radii in Table 3 are quoted without uncertainties, and Figure 8 has no error bars or statistical test on the radius increase. The radius is defined from Gaussian fits along two axes, so fitting errors and PSF calibration errors should be propagated; without them, the claim that all 16 clumps show a size increase at z=2.2 cannot be assessed against measurement noise.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (2), Figure 5] Gas masses are derived by applying the Kennicutt (1998) Schmidt-Kennicutt relation, calibrated on galaxy-aperture scales, to individual clump apertures. The text acknowledges this assumption 'is likely untrue,' but the resulting Mgas values are then compared directly with Mdyn in Figure 5 and used to infer feedback contributions, with no error bars or systematic offset quoted. Please either provide a clump-scale calibration, propagate the stated ~0.3 dex systematic, or explicitly reframe the Mgas-Mdyn comparison as an order-of-magnitude check.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3] There is a typo, 'positiong,' and the formula for R should be written with an explicit square root, e.g., R = 0.5 sqrt(FWHM_x FWHM_y), to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers 'Ref f logM' are unclear; please separate the effective-radius and stellar-mass columns with definitions in the table note.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] Figure 3 reports 31 resolved clumps and Figure 4 reports 77 clumps, while Table 3 and the text state 38 resolved and 84 total; please explain the exclusions (e.g., missing kinematics or non-detections) in the captions or text.
  4. [§5.1, Figure 8] The text says the simulated high-z cubes contain 17 clumps, while Figure 8 and the discussion refer to 16 corresponding clumps; please make the counts and the matching rule consistent.
  5. [Figure 7] The normalization of the histograms 'by the number of data in each bin' is not defined; please state whether the y-axis is a fraction per bin and give the bin width.
  6. [§5.2, Eq. (4)] In the Toomre parameter expression, the factor A is not clearly defined; please specify A=3.36 for stellar disks and A=pi for gas disks and define kappa as the epicyclic frequency in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the size-inflation result is an empirical simulation test, not a fitted prediction; self-citation to Goncalves et al. (2010) is methodological and externally corroborated.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not exhibit a circular reduction. Clump sizes are measured from Pa-alpha maps via FellWalker plus Gaussian fitting (Section 3), SFRs are calibrated from SDSS H-alpha fluxes (Section 4.1), and gas and dynamical masses use published Kennicutt (1998) constants and a stated C=5 (Section 4.3); none of these quantities is fitted to the target conclusion. The central size-inflation claim (Figure 8) comes from an artificial-redshift simulation that smooths datacubes to OSIRIS resolution and applies cosmological surface-brightness dimming (Section 2.1). This is an empirical test, not a fit, and the same effect is independently reported by Fisher et al. (2017a). The simulation's details are partly delegated to Goncalves et al. (2010), a co-authored prior paper, via the sentence 'For further information, we refer the reader to Goncalves et al. (2010)', but that is a methodological self-citation rather than a load-bearing uniqueness argument, and the current simulation is applied to new data. The manuscript itself flags the Schmidt-Kennicutt assumption as 'likely untrue' with an in-prep citation; that is a stated limitation, not a circular step. The main weakness is under-specification of noise injection and clump-matching thresholds in the simulated z=2.2 cubes, which is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its derived quantities rest on several empirical relations and hand-chosen thresholds; the most load-bearing are the application of the Schmidt-Kennicutt law at clump scales (with an unpublished error bound) and the fidelity of the artificial redshift simulation. All parameter choices are stated, but none are varied in robustness tests.

free parameters (6)
  • Virial coefficient C = 5
    Used in Mdyn = C R sigma^2/G (Equation 3); chosen for spherical symmetry, but possible range 1-5. Directly scales all dynamical masses and affects the Mdyn>Mgas comparison.
  • Resolution threshold factor = 1.2
    Equation 1: clumps are considered resolved only if size > 1.2 times the PSF FWHM; chosen after visual inspection, determines which 38 of 84 clumps are used for kinematics.
  • FellWalker MINPIX = 4
    Minimum pixel count for a clump detection; affects the number of clumps and their measured sizes.
  • FellWalker MAXJUMP = 4
    Search radius for peak connection, set to about twice the AO FWHM; controls merging of nearby peaks and therefore clump sizes.
  • FellWalker noise threshold = 2.0*RMS
    MINHEIGHT, MINDIP and NOISE set to 2.0 times the image RMS; sets the detection floor for clumps.
  • Spaxel S/N threshold = 6
    Only spaxels with Gaussian fit S/N greater than 6 enter the velocity and dispersion maps (Section 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Schmidt-Kennicutt relation (Sigma_SFR = A Sigma_gas^N, A=2.5e-4, N=1.4) holds at individual clump scales.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 to convert clump SFR to gas mass; the authors state this assumption is 'likely untrue' but assert errors below 0.3 dex based on Goncalves et al. (in prep).
  • domain assumption Clumps are spherically symmetric and virialized, so a constant C=5 is valid for dynamical masses.
    Section 4.3, Equation 3; if clumps are disk-like or anisotropic, C could be as low as 1, changing Mdyn by a factor of 5.
  • domain assumption The SFR-Halpha ratio is constant within each galaxy and extinction is negligible (E(B-V)<0.1).
    Section 4.1; individual clump SFRs are derived by scaling the global SFR by Pa-alpha counts within each clump.
  • domain assumption The artificial redshift simulation reproduces real z=2.2 observations, including noise, PSF, pixel scale, and dimming.
    Section 2.1; the central size-inflation result depends on this simulation, which is only briefly described and referenced to Goncalves et al. (2010).
  • domain assumption Toomre Q analysis assumes a uniform disk with kappa = sqrt(3) Omega and Omega = sqrt(GM/R^3).
    Section 5.2, Equation 4; these approximations set the Q values and the conclusion that 94% of clumps are more unstable than their hosts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-redshift analogues of cosmic noon galaxies as laboratories for clumpy star formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RR47URNF

@misc{pith2026250711492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-redshift analogues of cosmic noon galaxies as laboratories for clumpy star formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RR47URNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11492}
}
read the original abstract

It has been established that a significant fraction of star formation at high-redshift occurs in clumpy galaxies. The properties of clumps and their formation mechanisms, however, remain highly debated. In this work we analyze a sample of 18 Supercompact Ultraviolet Luminous Galaxies observed with the OSIRIS spectrograph at the Keck Telescope, targeting their Pa-alpha emission. These galaxies, although at z~0.1-0.2, share many similar properties with star-forming galaxies at cosmic noon. We find a total of 84 star-forming clumps with typical sizes of a few hundred parsecs. The star-forming clumps exhibit low values of velocity shear (~12 km/s) and high velocity dispersion (~70 km/s). The dynamical masses of the clumps are typically higher than gas masses inferred from the measured star-formation rates of each clump. We also artificially redshift our data to emulate observations at z=2.2 and allow for a direct comparison with other galaxies at higher redshift. Our results indicate that, due to the effects of clump clustering and low-resolution observations, high-z clumps appear larger at greater cosmological distances. This underscores the importance of using low-redshift observations to anchor studies at earlier epochs. Finally, our results support the idea of growing clump sizes in star-forming galaxies as a function of redshift, although not to scales of kpc as found by other works without the benefits of adaptive optics or gravitational lensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This diagram summarizes the steps used to selecting the clumps in our sample. We first collapse the datacubes along the spatial dimensions to obtain a one-dimensional spectrum for the entire galaxy as a function of wavelength. Next we fit a Gaussian profile to the Pa−α line to select the wavelength channels collapsed to produce two-dimensional maps of flux for each object. Later we apply the Fellwalker method to the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LBAs with their respective clumps identified. The red circles indicate the positions of the 84 identified clumps. The solid red circles show the 38 clumps with resolution above the threshold presented in Equation 1, while the dotted red circles denote the remaining unresolved clumps. The yellow line in the lower left corner represents a physical scale of 1 kpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the velocity shear distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity dispersion distribution for the 77 iden￾tified clumps. The blue shaded histogram show the distri￾bution for all clumps, while green and red lines represent resolved and unresolved clumps, respectively. The dashed lines highlight the mean values for the velocit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relation between gas mass and dynamical mass identified in this work. The gas mass in the x axis was obtain using the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation. The dynam￾ical gas was obtain using velocity dispersion and assuming a virialized objects. The blue slash dotted line i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between the size of the clump and its dispersion of velocities(σ) The red dotted line is the linear regression. et al. 2009), highly star-forming regions – the mass bud￾get will be dominated by gas, as seen in Gon¸calves et al. (2014). In figure 6 we prese…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot normalized by the number of data in each bin for the local HII regions from the WISE catalog (Wright et al. 2010), one sample selected from among the brightest and most isolated in a group of spiral galaxies (Rozas et al. 2006), clumps found by Wisnioski et al. (2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot showing clump sizes at z = 2.2 and z ≈ 0.2, for 16 corresponding clumps at the two distances. It was observed that all clumps in high-z showed an increase in their radii, even after the quadratic correction of the FWHM. The red dotted line represents equality betw…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: clearly illustrates a well-defined bimodal dis￾tribution, highlighting the turbulence within the star￾forming clumps in our sample. The reason behind the high turbulent velocities ob￾served in star-forming galaxies and inside the clumps at high redshift remains an open…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relation between SFR and R for different clump samples. The green squares represent the clumps located at redshifts between 1 - 1.5 (Livermore et al. 2012), while the red filled squares represent clumps at redshifts between 1-4 (Livermore et al. 2015) and the crosses …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: In the left image, UVLG 143407 is depicted in Low-z, revealing the presence of two discernible clumps marked by red dotted circles. In contrast, the right image displays a simulated High-z (z = 2.2) view of the galaxy, in which only one clump is observable, highlighte…

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. Morphologies of SAGAbg low-mass galaxies in Legacy Survey multi-band imaging: dependence on stellar masses, star-formation rates and low-redshift evolution

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Low-mass star-forming galaxies are disk-dominated; their light concentration increases with stellar mass and decreases with sSFR, with bulges emerging near log(M*/M_sun) ~ 9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.21054, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.21054

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.21054 2024

  2. [2]

    2006, A&A, 445, 471, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053793

    Bastian, N., Emsellem, E., Kissler-Patig, M., & Maraston, C. 2006, A&A, 445, 471, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053793

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053793 2006

  3. [3]

    R., Schiminovich, D., Johnson, B

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

    work page doi:10.1086/521146 2007

  4. [4]

    R., Gon¸ calves, T

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Gon¸ calves, T. S., Overzier, R., et al. 2009, ApJL, 699, L118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l118 2009

  5. [5]

    R., Lehmer, B

    Basu-Zych, A. R., Lehmer, B. D., Hornschemeier, A. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/152

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/152 2013

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 1007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv027

    Behrendt, M., Burkert, A., & Schartmann, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv027 2015

  7. [7]

    Berry, D. S. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004 2015

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/104

    Boada, S., Tilvi, V., Papovich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/104 2015

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Emsellem, E

    Bournaud, F., Duc, P. A., & Emsellem, E. 2008, MNRAS, 389, L8, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00511.x

    2008

  2. [10]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237, doi: 10.1086/522077

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    G., & Martig, M

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, ApJL, 707, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/57

    Bournaud, F., Perret, V., Renaud, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/57

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 76, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0295-x

    Cava, A., Schaerer, D., Richard, J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 76, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0295-x

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf058

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Mundy, C

    Conselice, C. J., Mundy, C. J., Ferreira, L., & Duncan, K. 2022, ApJ, 940, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b1a

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Berta, S., et al

    Contursi, A., Baker, A. J., Berta, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730609

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Mieda, E., et al

    Cosens, M., Wright, S. A., Mieda, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb8f

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1713

    Dekel, A., Lapiner, S., Ginzburg, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1713

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., & Adamo, A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L118, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly112

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2017a, ApJL, 836, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d52

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Schaerer, D., Cava, A., Mayer, L., & Tamburello, V. 2017a, ApJL, 836, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d52

    doi

  14. [22]

    2017b, A&A, 605, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628513

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Zamojski, M., Rujopakarn, W., et al. 2017b, A&A, 605, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628513

    doi

  15. [23]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1115, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0874-0

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., Combes, F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1115, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0874-0

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Marcus, M. T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/306

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Coe, D. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 763, doi: 10.1086/511667

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd541 18

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 107, doi: 10.1086/504891

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Glazebrook, K., Damjanov, I., et al

    Fisher, D. B., Glazebrook, K., Damjanov, I., et al. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2281 —. 2017b, MNRAS, 464, 491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2281 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/65 F¨ or...

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al

    Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220981

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101 Gon¸ calves, T

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101 Gon¸ calves, T. S., Basu-Zych, A., Overzier, R. A., P´ erez, L., & Martin, D. C. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu852 Gon¸ calves, T. S., Basu-Zych, A., Overzier, R., e...

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Z., Wang, T., & Fu, H

    Guo, K., Zheng, X. Z., Wang, T., & Fu, H. 2015a, ApJL, 808, L49, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L49

    doi

  24. [32]

    2012, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts

    Guo, Y. 2012, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts

    2012

  25. [33]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    doi

  26. [34]

    M., Hoopes, C

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

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Heckman, T

    Hoopes, C. G., Heckman, T. M., Salim, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 441, doi: 10.1086/516644

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 202, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/202

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Smith, H

    Hung, C.-L., Hayward, C. C., Smith, H. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/99

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2004, A&A, 413, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034282

    Immeli, A., Samland, M., Gerhard, O., & Westera, P. 2004, A&A, 413, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034282

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Jansen, R

    Kewley, L. J., Jansen, R. A., & Geller, M. J. 2005, PASP, 117, 227, doi: 10.1086/428303

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    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, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 62691A, doi: 10.1117/12.672061

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., & Erb, D. K. 2006, AJ, 131, 70, doi: 10.1086/498683

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Steidel, C

    Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 929, doi: 10.1086/521786 —. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2057, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/2057

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Nesvadba, N

    Lehnert, M. D., Nesvadba, N. P. H., Le Tiran, L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1660, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1660 Lenki´ c, L., Bolatto, A. D., Fisher, D. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1954

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 031, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/3/31

    Li, C., Wang, H.-C., Wu, Y.-W., Ma, Y.-H., & Lin, L.-H. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 031, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/3/31

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Kim, K.-T., et al

    Liu, T., Evans, N. J., Kim, K.-T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1577

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Jones, T

    Livermore, R. C., Jones, T. A., Richard, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv686

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    A., & Heckman, T

    Loaiza-Agudelo, M., Overzier, R. A., & Heckman, T. M. 2020, ApJ, 891, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f6b

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2267

    Mandelker, N., Padnos, D., Dekel, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2267

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387 Meˇ stri´ c, U., Vanzella, E., Zanella, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2309

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08696

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08696

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    2023, A&A, 678, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346951

    Nagy, D., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Messa, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346951

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    1999, ApJ, 514, 77, doi: 10.1086/306932 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., Hopkins, P

    Noguchi, M. 1999, ApJ, 514, 77, doi: 10.1086/306932 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., Hopkins, P. F., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2754

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Heckman, T

    Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T. M., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 979, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/979

    2010 doi

  48. [57]

    A., Heckman, T

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

    2009 doi

  49. [58]

    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

  50. [59]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03379

    Posses, A., Aravena, M., Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03379, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03379

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    J., Moore, T

    Rigby, A. J., Moore, T. J. T., Plume, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2808

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    Beckman, J. E. 2006, A&A, 455, 539, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054388

    2006 doi

  54. [63]

    S., Primack, J

    Somerville, R. S., Primack, J. R., & Faber, S. M. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 504, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03975.x 19

    2001

  55. [64]

    F., Rafelski, M., et al

    Soto, E., de Mello, D. F., Rafelski, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da3

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    S., Hayward, C

    Spilker, J. S., Hayward, C. C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 929, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e6

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781, doi: 10.1038/nature08773

    2010 doi

  58. [67]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    Franx, M. 2012, ApJL, 754, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L29

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 3339, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20850.x

    Wisnioski, E., Glazebrook, K., Blake, C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3339, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20850.x

    2012

  62. [71]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  63. [72]

    A., Larkin, J

    Wright, S. A., Larkin, J. E., Law, D. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 421, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/421

    2009 doi

  64. [73]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  65. [74]

    I., et al

    Zhang, G.-Y., Xu, J.-L., Vasyunin, A. I., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833622

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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