arxiv: 2603.15869 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Analysis of spatially resolved stellar populations and emission line properties in nearby galaxies with J-PLUS data. II-Results for the M51 group and first comparison with the M101 group

J. Thain\'a-Batista , R. Cid Fernandes , R. M. Gonz\'alez Delgado , J. E. Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'in , R. Garc\'ia-Benito , L. A. D\'iaz-Garc\'ia , G. Mart\'inez-Solaeche , D. Ruschel-Dutra

show 14 more authors

V. H. Sasse A. J. Cenarro D. Crist\'obal-Hornillos C. Hern\'andez-Monteagudo C. L\'opez-Sanjuan A. Mar\'in-Franch M. Moles J. Varela H. V\'azquez Rami\'o J. Alcaniz R. A. Dupke A. Ederoclite L. Sodr\'e Jr. R. E. Angulo

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

keywords M51 groupM101 groupstellar populationsJ-PLUS surveyenvironmental quenchingspatially resolved mapsgalaxy interactionsnebular metallicity

0 comments

The pith

The M51 group shows more advanced dynamical evolution than the M101 group, with flatter age and metallicity gradients plus signs of quenching.

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

The paper maps stellar ages, metallicities, dust attenuation, and emission lines across galaxies in the M51 group by fitting J-PLUS multi-band data with the AlStar code. It compares these resolved properties directly to the same analysis previously done on the M101 group. A sympathetic reader would care because the results indicate that interactions in even modest-mass groups can erase inside-out formation signatures and drive outside-in quenching. The M51 galaxies display flatter age and nebular metallicity relations with stellar mass surface density, more dust, and a retired companion galaxy, while M101 largely retains its original gradients. This highlights how group environment shapes galaxy properties beyond isolated systems.

Core claim

The M51 group displays signatures of more advanced dynamical evolution than the M101 group. This appears in flattened age and nebular metallicity gradients, enhanced dust content, and environmental quenching in some members. The interacting pair M51a/b shows M51a with star-forming spiral arms while M51b is a retired early-type galaxy. M63 has asymmetries consistent with outside-in quenching from a past interaction. All galaxies follow the resolved star-forming main sequence except M51b. In contrast, the less evolved M101 group preserves inside-out formation signatures. The comparison remains limited by small-number statistics but suggests group mass and interactions influence evolution even,

What carries the argument

AlStar spectral fitting code applied to J-PLUS multi-band datacubes to produce spatially resolved maps of stellar population properties and emission-line quantities.

If this is right

Age and nebular metallicity gradients flatten in groups that have undergone more interactions.
Environmental quenching can proceed from the outside in, as seen in M63 asymmetries.
Retired galaxies emerge within interacting pairs while their companions remain star-forming.
Relations between physical properties and stellar mass surface density become flatter in more evolved groups.
Most group members align with the resolved star-forming main sequence except retired early-type objects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending the same photometric fitting method to additional groups would test whether group mass correlates with the degree of gradient flattening.
The approach could scale to wider surveys to build statistical samples of environmental effects on resolved galaxy properties.
Dynamical history may leave lasting imprints on dust content and star-formation patterns that models of group evolution should reproduce.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences between the M51 and M101 groups are driven primarily by dynamical evolution and interactions rather than selection biases or unaccounted systematics in the AlStar fitting.

What would settle it

A larger sample of galaxy groups with comparable masses showing no systematic difference in age or metallicity gradients between interacting and non-interacting systems would challenge the claim that M51 is more dynamically evolved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15869 by A. Ederoclite, A. J. Cenarro, A. Mar\'in-Franch, C. Hern\'andez-Monteagudo, C. L\'opez-Sanjuan, D. Crist\'obal-Hornillos, D. Ruschel-Dutra, G. Mart\'inez-Solaeche, H. V\'azquez Rami\'o, J. Alcaniz, J. E. Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'in, J. Thain\'a-Batista, J. Varela, L. A. D\'iaz-Garc\'ia, L. Sodr\'e Jr., M. Moles, R. A. Dupke, R. Cid Fernandes, R. E. Angulo, R. Garc\'ia-Benito, R. M. Gonz\'alez Delgado, V. H. Sasse.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: RGB composites using (J0660, g, sum of five bluer filters) of the original data to the galaxies of M51 group. The white line represents the distance. M51: Commonly known as the Whirlpool Galaxy, M51 comprises two interacting galaxies: The face-on, grand design spiral M51a (NGC 5194) and its early-type companion M51b (NGC 5195). With a redshift of 0.001534, M51a hosts a Seyfert 2 nucleus, plenty of star-fo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of the pixel tagging scheme for M51. Left panel: RGB composite and green contours of the H ii regions detected. Middle: Same composite, but with “dusty regions” marked by green contours. Right: Pixel tags, where the labels −1, 0, 1, 2, 3 mean respectively: not galaxy data, unlabeled region, H ii region, dusty region, and deblended galaxy (M51b, in this case). steps. These pre-processing steps … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Example AlStar fits for individual spaxels in different regions of M51 and M63. Colored lines with error bars show the data (Oλ), while black lines show the model photometric fluxes (Mλ), and the gray lines show the corresponding high-resolution model spectrum. Images on the right show a 1.5′ × 1.5 ′ zoom of composites built with the J0660, r, and g fluxes in the R, G, and B channels, respectively. The bot… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Maps of stellar population properties for galaxies in the M51 group. From left to right: surface density, mean age, star formation rate surface density, and an RGB with the fluxes at 5635 Å of old, intermediate-age, and young populations. See text for details. Article number, page 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Maps of the effective V-band dust optical depth (˜τ). The central and right panels show RGB composites with the i, r, and g bands before and after correction for dust, respectively. 4.3. Emission line maps We now turn to the analysis of the main EL properties derived from our fits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Maps of emission-line properties. From left to right: Hα surface brightness; Hα equivalent width; RGB with the ([N ii], Hα, [O iii]) fluxes; BPT diagram of the spaxels of each galaxy, with points color-coded as in the RGB panel. Galaxies appear in the same order as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Median scaling relations for all galaxies. In the third column, the gray dashed line is the median curve from Barrera-Ballesteros et al. (2016) for 653 MaNGA galaxies. The gray line shows the 80% contour of Barrera-Ballesteros et al. (2016) for MaNGA galaxies with log M⋆/M⊙ < 9.2. The dotted lines in the last panel represent lines of specific SFR at 0.01 and 1 Gyr−1 . The thick gray line shows the star-for… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The panels follow the same structure as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We characterize the spatially resolved stellar population and emission-line properties of galaxies in the M51 group using the same methodology previously applied to the M101 group, aiming to understand how environmental processes shape galaxy properties across different groups. Properties are derived by applying the \textsc{AlStar} spectral fitting code to multi-band datacubes from the Javalambre Photometric Local Universe Survey (J-PLUS). We present spatially resolved maps of the main stellar population and emission-line properties for the M51 group galaxies. The interacting pair M51a/b displays clearly distinct properties: M51a shows prominent star-forming spiral arms, while its companion is essentially an early-type retired galaxy. M63 exhibits asymmetries in stellar age, dust attenuation, and H$_\alpha$ equivalent width, consistent with outside-in quenching likely related to a past interaction. Relations between physical properties and stellar mass surface density ($\Sigma_\star$) were investigated. The age-$\Sigma_\star$ and nebular metallicity-$\Sigma_\star$ relations are flatter than those in the M101 group. In addition, all galaxies align with the resolved star-forming main sequence, except M51b, which shows the properties of a retired galaxy. Overall, the M51 group displays signatures of more advanced dynamical evolution than the M101 group. This is evidenced by flattened age and nebular metallicity gradients, enhanced dust content, and signs of environmental quenching in some members. In contrast, the less dynamically evolved M101 group largely preserves its inside-out formation signatures. While these results suggest that group mass and interactions influence galaxy evolution even in low-mass environments, the comparison of two systems remains limited by small-number statistics. This study highlights the potential of J-PLUS data for IFS-like analyses of nearby galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

M51 maps and gradient comparison to M101 are new but rest on a handful of galaxies with no reported uncertainties or tests.

read the letter

The paper takes the AlStar fitting pipeline from the earlier M101 work and runs it on J-PLUS photometry for the M51 group. It delivers resolved maps of age, metallicity, dust, and H-alpha for M51a, M51b, and M63, then directly contrasts the two groups. The main new findings are the flatter age-Σ★ and nebular metallicity-Σ★ relations in M51, higher dust content, and quenching signs in some members, which the authors read as evidence that M51 has experienced more advanced dynamical evolution and interactions than the less evolved M101 system. Most galaxies still sit on the resolved star-forming main sequence, with M51b as the clear retired outlier. The consistent method across papers is the real strength here; it lets the comparison be straightforward without re-deriving everything from scratch. The individual galaxy descriptions, such as M51b's early-type retired state and M63's outside-in asymmetries, give concrete examples that match expectations for interaction-driven effects. The soft spots are the small sample and the missing quantitative support. Only three galaxies are shown for M51 and a similar handful for M101, yet the abstract reports no slope uncertainties, no bootstrap or Monte Carlo errors on the gradients, and no statistical test of the inter-group difference. The paper itself flags the small-number limitation, but that does not remove the risk that the flattening reflects galaxy-specific histories or fitting systematics rather than group environment. This work is for people already following photometric IFS studies of nearby groups and environmental quenching. It adds useful case studies and shows J-PLUS can produce usable maps, but it does not yet deliver a robust statistical result. I would send it to peer review so referees can check the error budget and sample selection details.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the AlStar spectral fitting code to J-PLUS multi-band datacubes to derive spatially resolved stellar population and emission-line properties for galaxies in the M51 group (M51a/b and M63), following the identical methodology used previously for the M101 group. It reports flatter age-Σ⋆ and nebular metallicity-Σ⋆ relations, enhanced dust content, asymmetries consistent with outside-in quenching, and alignment with the resolved star-forming main sequence (except for retired galaxy M51b), concluding that the M51 group shows signatures of more advanced dynamical evolution than the less evolved M101 group due to interactions and group environment.

Significance. If the inter-group differences can be placed on a statistically quantified footing, the results would provide concrete observational evidence that even low-mass group environments and interactions can drive measurable changes in radial gradients and quenching, extending the M101 baseline and demonstrating J-PLUS's utility for photometric IFS-like analyses of nearby galaxies. The explicit acknowledgment of small-number statistics is a positive step toward cautious interpretation.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that age-Σ⋆ and nebular metallicity-Σ⋆ relations are 'flatter' than in the M101 group is presented without reported uncertainties on the fitted slopes, without a statistical test of the difference between groups, and without an error budget on the AlStar-derived quantities; this directly undermines the central evolutionary comparison given the small sample.
[Abstract] Abstract and results: only three galaxies (M51a, M51b, M63) are analyzed in the M51 group; no quantitative assessment is given of how representative these objects are or how small-number variance could produce the reported flattening, enhanced dust, and quenching signatures relative to M101 analogs.
[Abstract] Abstract: the interpretation that observed differences arise primarily from dynamical evolution and interactions (rather than selection biases, galaxy-specific histories, or systematics in AlStar fits to J-PLUS photometry) lacks supporting tests such as mock recovery of radial trends or explicit checks against known biases in the fitting code.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'all galaxies align with the resolved star-forming main sequence' would benefit from an explicit reference or definition of the sequence used for comparison.
[Results] Throughout: ensure that spatially resolved maps include quantitative color bars with units and that any radial profiles are accompanied by the number of radial bins and the adopted binning scheme.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the statistical foundation and supporting analyses in our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, incorporating revisions where they improve the rigor of our claims while maintaining an honest assessment of the study's limitations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that age-Σ⋆ and nebular metallicity-Σ⋆ relations are 'flatter' than in the M101 group is presented without reported uncertainties on the fitted slopes, without a statistical test of the difference between groups, and without an error budget on the AlStar-derived quantities; this directly undermines the central evolutionary comparison given the small sample.

Authors: We agree that the original presentation lacked sufficient quantitative support for the slope comparison. In the revised manuscript, we now report the fitted slopes with their uncertainties for both the M51 and M101 groups. We have added a statistical test (two-sample t-test accounting for slope uncertainties) to evaluate the significance of the differences. We have also expanded the methods and results sections to include a comprehensive error budget for the AlStar-derived quantities, incorporating photometric uncertainties, model degeneracies, and systematic effects. These changes provide a more robust basis for the claim of flatter relations while preserving the cautious interpretation already present in the text. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results: only three galaxies (M51a, M51b, M63) are analyzed in the M51 group; no quantitative assessment is given of how representative these objects are or how small-number variance could produce the reported flattening, enhanced dust, and quenching signatures relative to M101 analogs.

Authors: The manuscript already explicitly acknowledges the limitation imposed by small-number statistics. In the revision, we have added a dedicated paragraph discussing the representativeness of M51a, M51b, and M63 by comparing their global properties and environments to other known members of the M51 group from the literature. We have also performed a bootstrap resampling analysis on the derived relations to illustrate the potential impact of small-sample variance on the observed flattening and dust enhancements. These additions quantify the uncertainty arising from the limited sample while reinforcing that the qualitative differences (e.g., asymmetries and retired status of M51b) remain robust. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the interpretation that observed differences arise primarily from dynamical evolution and interactions (rather than selection biases, galaxy-specific histories, or systematics in AlStar fits to J-PLUS photometry) lacks supporting tests such as mock recovery of radial trends or explicit checks against known biases in the fitting code.

Authors: We have addressed this by adding mock recovery tests in the revised methods section. Simulated J-PLUS multi-band datacubes with known input radial gradients in age, metallicity, and dust were generated and fitted with AlStar to confirm reliable recovery of the trends within the reported uncertainties. We have also included explicit checks for known photometric fitting biases (e.g., age-dust-metallicity degeneracies) by comparing AlStar results against alternative model libraries and against literature values for M51 from spectroscopic studies. These tests support that systematics do not dominate the observed inter-group differences, though we continue to frame the interpretation as suggestive rather than definitive given the sample size. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

A complete statistical quantification of inter-group differences that fully accounts for small-number variance and selection effects would require observations of additional groups, which lies beyond the scope of the present study.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation of methodology; empirical results independent of prior inputs

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Abstract]
"We characterize the spatially resolved stellar population and emission-line properties of galaxies in the M51 group using the same methodology previously applied to the M101 group"

The comparison framework is justified by reference to overlapping-author prior work, but the M51 results are generated independently from fresh photometry and do not reduce the evolutionary interpretation to the M101 inputs.

full rationale

The paper applies the AlStar fitting code to new J-PLUS datacubes for M51 galaxies to produce maps of age, metallicity, dust, and emission-line properties, then performs direct observational comparisons of gradients and relations against the M101 results. No derivation, prediction, or ansatz reduces to its own fitted inputs by construction. The sole self-reference is to the shared methodology from prior work on M101; this citation is not load-bearing for the central claim of more advanced dynamical evolution in M51, which rests on the new data contrasts. Small-sample caveats are explicitly noted in the abstract.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the AlStar spectral fitting code when applied to J-PLUS photometry and on the interpretation that differences between groups reflect environmental processes. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models in AlStar accurately recover ages, metallicities, and dust attenuation from broadband photometry without major degeneracies
Invoked throughout the fitting process described in the abstract; standard in the field but known to have age-dust-metallicity degeneracies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5810 in / 1512 out tokens · 58584 ms · 2026-05-15T09:38:37.121852+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We characterize the spatially resolved stellar population and emission-line properties of galaxies in the M51 group using the same methodology previously applied to the M101 group... flattened age and nebular metallicity gradients, enhanced dust content, and signs of environmental quenching
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Properties are derived by applying the AlStar spectral fitting code to multi-band datacubes from the Javalambre Photometric Local Universe Survey (J-PLUS)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

SAGUI: SED-based Segmentation of Multi-band Galaxy Images -- Application to JADES in GOODS-South
astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

SAGUI introduces a two-stage segmentation framework for multi-band galaxy images that combines starlet decomposition, spectral similarity analysis, and copula statistics to identify structures and recover low-surface-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., Padilla, N., & Lambas, D. G. 2012, A&A, 539, A46

work page 2012
[2]

V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al

Asari, N. V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 263

work page 2007
[3]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

work page 1981
[4]

K., Heckman, T

Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Heckman, T. M., Zhu, G. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2513

work page 2016
[5]

2006, A&A, 447, 49

Battaglia, G., Fraternali, F., Oosterloo, T., & Sancisi, R. 2006, A&A, 447, 49

work page 2006
[6]

Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., Piotrowska, J. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 230

work page 2020
[7]

& Gavazzi, G

Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517 Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa57271-25

work page 2006
[8]

2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0

Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.12.0

work page 2024
[9]

R., & Kennicutt, Jr., R

Bresolin, F., Garnett, D. R., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ApJ, 615, 228

work page 2004
[10]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

work page 2003
[11]

C., et al

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

work page 2000
[12]

L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582

work page 1994
[13]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

Cappellari, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

work page 2016
[14]

I., & Terlevich, E

Castellanos, M., Díaz, A. I., & Terlevich, E. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 315

work page 2002
[15]

J., Moles, M., Cristóbal-Hornillos, D., et al

Cenarro, A. J., Moles, M., Cristóbal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A176

work page 2019
[16]

J., Moles, M., Marín-Franch, A., et al

Cenarro, A. J., Moles, M., Marín-Franch, A., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 9149, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V , 91491I

work page 2014
[17]

2003, PASP, 115, 763–795

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763–795

work page 2003
[18]

S., Martínez-Delgado, D., Gabany, R

Chonis, T. S., Martínez-Delgado, D., Gabany, R. J., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 166 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687–1699 Cristóbal-Hornillos, D., Gruel, N., Varela, J., et al. 2012, in SPIE CS, V ol. 8451

work page 2011
[19]

M., van de Sande, J., Vaughan, S

Croom, S. M., van de Sande, J., Vaughan, S. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3446

work page 2024
[20]

V ., Pogge, R

Croxall, K. V ., Pogge, R. W., Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., & Moustakas, J. 2015, ApJ, 808, 42

work page 2015
[21]

L., Theis, C., Pringle, J

Dobbs, C. L., Theis, C., Pringle, J. E., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 625

work page 2010
[22]

R., Baugh, C

Eke, V . R., Baugh, C. M., & Cole, S. e. a. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866

work page 2004
[23]

Elmegreen, D. M. & Elmegreen, B. G. 1987, ApJ, 314, 3

work page 1987
[24]

2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107

Enia, A., Rodighiero, G., Morselli, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107

work page 2020
[25]

Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41 García-Benito, R., González Delgado, R. M., Pérez, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A27 González Delgado, R. M., Cid Fernandes, R., García-Benito, R., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 791, L16 González Delgado, R. M., Cid Fernandes, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A44 Gon...

work page 2005
[26]

M., Moretti, A., et al

Gullieuszik, M., Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 27

work page 2020
[27]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott, J. R. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 176, 1

work page 1972
[28]

1990, Bulletin d’Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 38, 7 Jaffé, Y

Helou, G. 1990, Bulletin d’Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 38, 7 Jaffé, Y . L., Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4753

work page 1990
[29]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Heckman, T. M. e. a. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

work page 2004
[30]

Kennicutt, Robert C., J., Bresolin, F., & Garnett, D. R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 801

work page 2003
[31]

Lacerda, E. A. D., Cid Fernandes, R., Couto, G. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3727

work page 2018
[32]

H., Hwang, N., & Lee, M

Lee, J. H., Hwang, N., & Lee, M. G. 2011, ApJ, 735, 75 Logroño-García, R., Vilella-Rojo, G., López-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A180

work page 2011
[33]

R., Smith Castelli, A

Lopes, A. R., Smith Castelli, A. V ., Krabbe, A. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A331 López-Sanjuan, C., Vázquez Ramió, H., Xiao, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A29

work page 2025
[34]

M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 575

work page 2010
[35]

2022, A&A, 668, A60 Marín-Franch, A., Taylor, K., Cenarro, J., Cristobal-Hornillos, D., & Moles, M

Lumbreras-Calle, A., López-Sanjuan, C., Sobral, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A60 Marín-Franch, A., Taylor, K., Cenarro, J., Cristobal-Hornillos, D., & Moles, M. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, V ol. 29, 2257381

work page 2022
[36]

A., Rosales-Ortega, F

Marino, R. A., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A114

work page 2013
[37]

McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A. E., Berg, D., & Kennicutt, R. 2016, ApJ, 826, 21 Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 241 Mentuch Cooper, E., Wilson, C. D., Foyle, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 165

work page 2016
[38]

L., et al

Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3113

work page 2021
[39]

C., Tremonti, C

Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 233

work page 2010
[40]

J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al

Nelson, E. J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 219

work page 2021
[41]

2020, A&A, 643, A90

Nersesian, A., Viaene, S., De Looze, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A90

work page 2020
[42]

2001, ApJ, 561, 203 Pérez-González, P

Nikola, T., Geis, N., Herrmann, F., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 203 Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Villar, V ., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 234

work page 2001
[43]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 978

Plat, A., Charlot, S., Bruzual, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 978

work page 2019
[44]

M., Jaffé, Y

Poggianti, B. M., Jaffé, Y . L., Moretti, A., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 304

work page 2017
[45]

T., Akhlaghi, M., López-Sanjuan, C., et al

Rahna, P. T., Akhlaghi, M., López-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A200

work page 2025
[46]

& Peng, Y .-j

Renzini, A. & Peng, Y .-j. 2015, ApJ, 801, L29

work page 2015
[47]

V ., Steiner, J

Ricci, T. V ., Steiner, J. E., & Menezes, R. B. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2419 Rodríguez-Martín, J. E., Díaz-García, L. A., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A52 San Roman, I., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Cenarro, A. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A181 Sánchez-Gil, M. C., Jones, D. H., Pérez, E., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 753

work page 2014
[48]

V ., van Zee, L., Dale, D

Smith, M. V ., van Zee, L., Dale, D. A., Staudaher, S., & Wrock, T. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, 477

work page 2022
[49]

2020, A&A, 642, A113 Stasi´nska, G., Vale Asari, N., Cid Fernandes, R., et al

Spitoni, E., Calura, F., Mignoli, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A113 Stasi´nska, G., Vale Asari, N., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L29

work page 2020
[50]

M., Dale, D

Staudaher, S. M., Dale, D. A., van Zee, L., Barnes, K. L., & Cook, D. O. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3613

work page 2015
[51]

A., van Albada, T

Swaters, R. A., van Albada, T. S., van der Hulst, J. M., & Sancisi, R. 2002, A&A, 390, 829 Sánchez, S. F. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 99–155

work page 2002
[52]

M., Renzini, A., et al

Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314 Thainá-Batista, J., Cid Fernandes, R., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A45 Thainá-Batista, J., Cid Fernandes, R., Herpich, F. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1874

work page 2015
[53]

A., Galazutdinova, O

Tikhonov, N. A., Galazutdinova, O. A., & Drozdovsky, I. O. 2006, arXiv e- prints, astro

work page 2006
[54]

G., Smith, R

Tress, R. G., Smith, R. J., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2973

work page 2020
[55]

2015, A&A, 580, A47

Vilella-Rojo, G., Viironen, K., López-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A47

work page 2015
[56]

E., Mihos, J

Watkins, A. E., Mihos, J. C., & Harding, P. 2015, ApJ, 800, L3

work page 2015
[57]

2020, PASP, 132, 094101

Wei, P., Zou, H., Kong, X., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 094101

work page 2020
[58]

2021, RAA, 21, 006

Wei, P., Zou, H., Lin, L., et al. 2021, RAA, 21, 006

work page 2021
[59]

Zabludoff, A. I. & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ, 496, 39 Article number, page 14 Thainá-Batista & the J-PLUS collaboration: The M51 group with J-PLUS Appendix A: Complementary material This appendix presents complementary figures that support the results discussed in the main text. Fig. A.1.RGB composites using (J0660,g, sum of five bluer filters) of the pre...

work page 1998