pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05141 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Identifying signatures of inflow onto face-on galaxies using the Balmer decrement

Meghna Sitaram , Hui Li , Yong Zheng , Greg L. Bryan , Mary Putman , Aaron Smith , Rahul Kannan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Balmer decrementgalactic inflowsface-on galaxiesdust extinctiongas accretionstar-forming galaxieshydrodynamical simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Foreground gas in face-on galaxies shows lower Balmer decrements than gas in or behind the disk.

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

The paper investigates whether the Balmer decrement can serve as an observational tool to detect gas inflows onto isolated star-forming galaxies viewed face-on. Using mock observations drawn from a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of a Milky Way-mass galaxy, the authors demonstrate that gas located in front of the disk has systematically lower Hα/Hβ values than gas embedded within the disk or on the far side. This offset arises from the position-dependent effects of dust extinction along the line of sight. A reader would care because direct evidence for fresh gas accretion remains scarce, and Doppler shifts alone cannot separate inflowing foreground material from outflowing background material in low-inclination systems. The mean front-to-back difference reaches approximately 0.14, although the extremely clumpy dust distribution adds scatter that restricts how cleanly the diagnostic separates components.

Core claim

In mock spatial-spectral observations of an isolated Milky Way-mass galaxy, gas components located in front of the disk exhibit systematically lower Balmer decrements than gas embedded in or behind the disk, with a mean front-back offset of Δ(Hα/Hβ) ≈ −0.14. The extremely clumpy, multiphase dust distribution along each line of sight introduces substantial scatter that limits clean separation between disk and far-side components. The results indicate that the Balmer decrement supplies a useful observational diagnostic of inflow and outflow geometry in dusty face-on galaxies.

What carries the argument

The Balmer decrement (Hα/Hβ intensity ratio) used as a position-dependent diagnostic that exploits differential dust extinction for gas in front of versus within or behind the galactic disk.

If this is right

  • Observers gain a method to flag likely inflowing gas in emission-line maps of low-inclination galaxies where velocity information alone is ambiguous.
  • The diagnostic applies specifically to dusty systems and works in emission, complementing absorption-line studies that are restricted to limited sightlines.
  • Foreground components selected by lower Balmer decrements can be isolated statistically even when dust clumpiness prevents clean separation for every individual pixel.
  • The approach enables studies of accretion in face-on disks that would otherwise be confused with far-side outflows of similar Doppler shift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same spatial-spectral data sets could be cross-checked with additional line ratios or metallicity maps to strengthen the inflow identification.
  • Varying the dust content or star-formation intensity across a suite of simulations would test how sensitive the 0.14 offset is to galaxy properties.
  • If the offset holds in observations, statistical samples of face-on galaxies could yield average inflow rates without requiring individual kinematic decomposition.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated galaxy and its multiphase clumpy dust distribution accurately represent conditions in real isolated star-forming galaxies such that the front-back Balmer decrement offset survives observational noise and selection effects.

What would settle it

A survey of real face-on star-forming galaxies using integral-field spectroscopy that finds no systematic average difference in Balmer decrement between kinematically distinct foreground and background gas components would falsify the proposed diagnostic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05141 by Aaron Smith, Greg L. Bryan, Hui Li, Mary Putman, Meghna Sitaram, Rahul Kannan, Yong Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An exaggerated schematic displaying the degeneracy in emission spectra of galaxies. In the top panel, an inflowing component in front of the galaxy appears as a component redshifted from the disk component in the spectrum. In the bottom panel, an outflowing component behind the galaxy similarly appears as a redshifted component. Though the Hα emission is similar, the Hβ emission will be more affected by ex… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hα emission maps of the simulation for four different snapshots equally spaced in time after reaching quasi-steady state, output by the radiative transfer code COLT. These four simulation snapshots are used for the rest of the analysis. We note the similar overall structure between the four time-steps, allowing us to apply a similar analysis to each timestep. the simulation is run for approximately 1 Gyr. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: The mass flux of different slices of the galaxy at different z height above and below the disk. Four different snapshots of time are shown. Right: The same but only for Hα-emitting gas between 3 × 103 K and 5 × 104 K. Regions of the plot corresponding to inflow and outflow are displayed on the right panel. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All panels show colormaps of the mass flux of gas at temperatures between 3 × 103 and 5 × 104 K across a slice of the galaxy with slice height labeled on the bottom right. Green corresponds to inflow and pink corresponds to outflow. Gray regions show pixels where there are no warm gas particles. line, we identified the particles inside using their posi￾tion. We included only particles whose centers fell in… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Hα and Hβ spectra of a single sight￾line ∼ 3.1 kpc from the center of the galaxy in the earliest timestep. Dotted lines are regions below the flux limit which were left out of analysis, while solid lines are areas above the flux limit. Center: The Balmer decrement across the spec￾trum, with dotted lines again representing areas excluded from remaining analysis. The dashed gray line indicates the intri… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The distribution of Balmer ratios between different components in the ISM and front of the galaxy. Red denotes inflow (red-shifted components in front of the galaxy) and blue denotes outflow. Both inflow and outflow peak at lower ratios than the disk. Right: A histogram showing the ratios of different components in the ISM and behind the galaxy. In this case, blue represents inflow (blue-shifted comp… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: On the left, each point represents a sightline containing a peak from the disk and one from in front of the disk. The x axis is the dust surface density including only the dust along the sightline between the two components, and the y-axis shows the Hα/Hβ ratio of the front component subtracted from the Hα/Hβ ratio of the disk component. On the right, the plot is the same but for sightlines containing peak… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The dust extinction in the visual band AV in magnitudes plotted against the surface density of dust Σdust. Each point represents a peak from one of the spectra, colored by their z-position with respect to the disk. The solid black lines are running medians of the displayed points. The dashed gray lines represent theoretical curves of the ’foreground dust screen’ and ’internal dust’ models from D. Calzetti … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This is a zoom-in on a single sightline whose spectrum is displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Hα and Hβ spectra of a single sightline ∼ kpc from the center of the galaxy in the earliest timestep. Dotted lines are regions below the flux limit which were left out of analysis, while solid lines are areas above the flux limit. Center: The Balmer decrement across the spectrum, with dotted lines again representing areas excluded from re￾maining analysis. The dashed gray line indicates the intrinsic … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Isolated star-forming galaxies require inflows of fresh gas from the surrounding medium to sustain episodes of star formation over time. However, there are very few direct detections of accretion onto external galaxies. Studies in absorption can only observe along limited sightlines, while those in emission can have difficulty distinguishing inflowing gas in the foreground of the galactic disk from similarly Doppler-shifted outflowing gas in the background. We explore the possibility of using the Balmer decrement (H$\alpha$/H$\beta$) in low-inclination systems as a diagnostic for disentangling the flow geometry in disk-like galaxies. We leverage mock spatial-spectral observations of an isolated Milky Way-mass galaxy simulated using the radiation-hydrodynamics code AREPO-RT and post-processed with the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code COLT. We find that gas components located in front of the disk exhibit systematically lower Balmer decrements than gas embedded in or behind the disk, with a mean front-back offset of $\Delta(\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta) \approx -0.14$. The ability to differentiate between the disk and far-side components is limited by the extremely clumpy, multiphase dust distribution along the line of sight introducing substantial scatter. Overall, the results provide a useful observational diagnostic of inflow and outflow in dusty face-on 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.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of an isolated Milky Way-mass galaxy with AREPO-RT, followed by Monte Carlo radiative transfer post-processing with COLT, to generate mock spatial-spectral observations. It reports that gas components located in front of the disk exhibit systematically lower Balmer decrements than gas embedded in or behind the disk, with a mean front-back offset of Δ(Hα/Hβ) ≈ -0.14, and proposes this as an observational diagnostic for inflows in low-inclination galaxies, while noting substantial scatter from the clumpy multiphase dust distribution.

Significance. If the offset is robust, the work supplies a concrete geometric diagnostic for separating inflow from outflow signatures in emission-line studies of face-on star-forming galaxies, where velocity information alone is ambiguous. The forward-modeling approach with established codes (AREPO-RT and COLT) directly ties the result to radiative transfer through a realistic, clumpy dust geometry rather than to fitted parameters, strengthening the interpretation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The central mean offset Δ(Hα/Hβ) ≈ -0.14 is presented as a direct measurement from the mocks, but the text provides no quantitative information on the number of sightlines or gas parcels sampled, the exact velocity or spatial criteria used to classify components as 'front,' 'embedded,' or 'behind,' the procedure for computing the mean and its uncertainty, or the statistical characterization of the clumpy-dust scatter (e.g., standard deviation, distribution shape, or fraction of sightlines showing the offset). These details are load-bearing for assessing whether the reported offset is statistically meaningful and observationally usable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the distinction is 'limited by the extremely clumpy, multiphase dust distribution' but does not quantify how this scatter would propagate into observational error bars or selection biases; a short additional sentence or figure panel would clarify the practical utility.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the Balmer decrement is occasionally inconsistent (Hα/Hβ versus the Δ symbol); uniform usage throughout would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive recommendation of minor revision. Their comment has identified an important gap in the presentation of our quantitative results, and we have revised the paper to address it directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The central mean offset Δ(Hα/Hβ) ≈ -0.14 is presented as a direct measurement from the mocks, but the text provides no quantitative information on the number of sightlines or gas parcels sampled, the exact velocity or spatial criteria used to classify components as 'front,' 'embedded,' or 'behind,' the procedure for computing the mean and its uncertainty, or the statistical characterization of the clumpy-dust scatter (e.g., standard deviation, distribution shape, or fraction of sightlines showing the offset). These details are load-bearing for assessing whether the reported offset is statistically meaningful and observationally usable.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological and statistical details were insufficiently quantified in the original text and that their inclusion strengthens the reader's ability to assess the result. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection in the Methods section and expanded the Results to specify: the total number of independent sightlines sampled through the galaxy; the precise spatial (position relative to the disk midplane) and velocity criteria used to classify gas components as front, embedded, or behind; the exact procedure for computing the mean offset (simple average across classified components) together with its uncertainty (standard error of the mean, confirmed via bootstrap resampling); and a full statistical characterization of the scatter, including the standard deviation, the shape of the distribution, and the fraction of sightlines that exhibit a negative offset. We have also added a supplementary figure showing the Balmer-decrement histograms for each geometric category to illustrate the clumpy-dust contribution to the scatter. These additions are now referenced from the Abstract and Results so that the reported mean offset of ≈ −0.14 is placed on a firmer quantitative footing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward-modeling result from established radiative transfer codes

full rationale

The central result (mean front-back Balmer decrement offset of ≈−0.14) is obtained by running AREPO-RT radiation-hydrodynamics on an isolated Milky Way-mass galaxy, then post-processing with the Monte Carlo code COLT to produce mock spatial-spectral observations, and finally measuring the Hα/Hβ ratio separately for gas components classified by their geometric position relative to the disk. This is a direct numerical measurement of an output quantity under the simulated dust geometry and radiative transfer; it does not involve fitting any parameter to the target observable, redefining the observable in terms of itself, or relying on a self-citation chain for the load-bearing step. The codes are standard, externally validated tools, and the paper explicitly notes the large scatter from clumpy dust as the main limitation rather than claiming a parameter-free analytic derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the fidelity of the radiation-hydrodynamic simulation and radiative transfer post-processing in reproducing realistic dust geometry and line emission; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the standard physics in the cited codes.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The AREPO-RT simulation produces a realistic multiphase ISM and dust distribution for an isolated Milky Way-mass galaxy.
    The mock observations rely on this single simulated galaxy to stand in for real systems.
  • domain assumption COLT radiative transfer accurately computes the observed Balmer decrement including dust extinction and scattering for the chosen lines of sight.
    The front-back offset is extracted from the post-processed spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5550 in / 1503 out tokens · 33891 ms · 2026-05-10T18:51:57.468591+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431

    Shimizu, I. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1431

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1431 2018

  2. [2]

    and Accardo, M

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508, doi: 10.1117/12.856027

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  3. [3]

    I., & Prochaska, J

    Baron, D., Netzer, H., Lutz, D., Davies, R. I., & Prochaska, J. X. 2024, ApJ, 968, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e9 2024

  4. [4]

    K., Steidel, C

    Bolda, C., Li, Z., Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., & Chen, Y. 2025, ApJ, 982, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb586 Bouch´ e, N., Finley, H., Schroetter, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 121, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/121

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb586 2025

  5. [5]

    and Copin, Y

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  6. [6]

    and Kinney, Anne L

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  7. [7]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582, doi: 10.1086/174346 16

    work page doi:10.1086/174346 1994

  8. [8]

    2009, in The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed

    Chiappini, C. 2009, in The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed. J. Andersen, Nordstr¨ oara, B. m, & J. Bland-Hawthorn, Vol. 254, 191–196, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308027580

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308027580 2009

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765, doi: 10.1086/303726

    work page doi:10.1086/303726 1997

  10. [10]

    Chomiuk, L., & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 2011

  11. [11]

    Clark, S., Bordoloi, R., & Fox, A. J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac504

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac504 2022

  12. [12]

    Coleman, E., Keerthi, V. G. C., Chen, Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93d0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad93d0 2024

  13. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/148

    Corlies, L., & Schiminovich, D. 2016, ApJ, 827, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/148

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/148 2016

  14. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  15. [15]

    A., et al

    Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 2015

  16. [16]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d

    Elia, D., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d 2022

  17. [17]

    Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B. K. 2003, PASA, 20, 189, doi: 10.1071/AS02047

    work page doi:10.1071/as02047 2003

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1666

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1666 2021

  19. [19]

    The Merger Rates and Mass Assembly Histories of Dark Matter Haloes in the Two

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2091, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16969.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16969.x 2010

  20. [20]

    Groves, B., Brinchmann, J., & Walcher, C. J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 1402, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19796.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19796.x 2011

  21. [21]

    J., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., MacQueen, P. J., Tejada, C., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 251–261, doi: 10.1117/12.552474

    work page doi:10.1117/12.552474 2004

  22. [22]

    L., Berg, D

    James, B. L., Berg, D. A., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8008

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac8008 2022

  23. [23]

    D., Schaye, J., Walth, G

    Johnson, S. D., Schaye, J., Walth, G. L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca28e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca28e 2022

  24. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3249

    Kannan, R., Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3249 2020

  25. [25]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    Kannan, R., Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz287 2019

  26. [26]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/62

    Kreckel, K., Groves, B., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/62

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/62 2013

  27. [27]

    Lehner, N., & Howk, J. C. 2010, ApJL, 709, L138, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L138

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l138 2010

  28. [28]

    K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19 2013

  29. [29]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684 2019

  30. [30]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/96 2015

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e

    Schaye, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e 2019

  32. [32]

    F., et al

    Lopez, S., Tejos, N., Barrientos, L. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3183

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3183 2020

  33. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    Springel, V. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2391 2019

  34. [34]

    C., & Marinacci, F

    McKinnon, R., Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Hayward, C. C., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx467 2017

  35. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1248

    McKinnon, R., Vogelsberger, M., Torrey, P., Marinacci, F., & Kannan, R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1248 2018

  36. [36]

    McKinnon, R. M. 2019, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2019

  37. [37]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 2019

  38. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9c

    Melso, N., Schiminovich, D., Smiley, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9c 2022

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Mingozzi, M., Cresci, G., Venturi, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834372

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834372 2019

  40. [40]

    C., Jones, T., et al

    Mortensen, K., Keerthi Vasan, G. C., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa11 2021

  41. [41]

    Putman, M. E. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2017

  42. [42]

    430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed

    Library, Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Dav´ e, 1, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-91 Reichardt Chu, B., Fisher, D. B., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2705

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52512-91 2025

  43. [43]

    Rubin, K. H. R., Prochaska, J. X., Koo, D. C., & Phillips, A. C. 2012, ApJL, 747, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l26 2012

  44. [44]

    The Merger Rates and Mass Assembly Histories of Dark Matter Haloes in the Two

    Schiminovich, D., Catinella, B., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 919, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17210.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17210.x 2010

  45. [45]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    Smith, A., Safranek-Shrader, C., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv565 2015

  46. [46]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.13721

    Smith, A., Kannan, R., Tacchella, S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.13721. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.13721

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...74T 768, 74

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/74 2013

  48. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2147 Tomiˇ ci´ c, N., Kreckel, K., Groves, B., et al

    Tejos, N., L´ opez, S., Ledoux, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2147 Tomiˇ ci´ c, N., Kreckel, K., Groves, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b30 17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2147 2021

  49. [49]

    L., Sabhlok, S., et al

    Vayner, A., Zakamska, N. L., Sabhlok, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3537 Villar Mart´ ın, M., Emonts, B., Humphrey, A., Cabrera

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3537 2023

  50. [50]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu448

    Lavers, A., & Binette, L. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu448

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu448 2014

  51. [51]

    C., & Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296, doi: 10.1086/318651

    work page doi:10.1086/318651 2001

  52. [52]

    A., Topping, M

    Weldon, A., Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1615 2023

  53. [53]

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Morris, M., & White, R. L. 1984, ApJ, 278, 186, doi: 10.1086/161780

    work page doi:10.1086/161780 1984

  54. [54]

    Zheng, Y., Peek, J. E. G., Werk, J. K., & Putman, M. E. 2017, ApJ, 834, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/179

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/179 2017