pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14092 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Radial Distribution of Star Formation and Gas-phase Metallicity in Spiral-Elliptical Galaxy Pairs

Cailu Shi, Guozhen Hu, Linlin Li, Shiyin Shen, Shuai Feng, Wenyuan Cui

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords star formation rategas-phase metallicityspiral-elliptical pairscircumgalactic mediumtidal interactionsradial profilesgalaxy evolutionMaNGA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spirals paired with ellipticals show suppressed central star formation and higher central metallicities.

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

Spiral galaxies in pairs with elliptical companions display reduced star formation in their centers along with elevated gas-phase metallicities. Spirals paired instead with other spirals show the opposite pattern of enhanced central star formation and lower metallicities. The strength of these effects grows with the mass of the elliptical companion and depends on whether the spiral's gas velocity field is symmetric or disturbed. The results point to the elliptical's hot circumgalactic medium blocking fresh gas supply while tidal encounters during close passes compress remaining gas and drive quick enrichment.

Core claim

In spiral-elliptical pairs the spiral galaxy exhibits suppressed central star formation and elevated gas-phase metallicities, while spirals in spiral-spiral pairs show centrally enhanced star formation and reduced metallicities. The degree of suppression and enrichment scales with companion mass and with the symmetry of the spiral's gas velocity field. The authors conclude that the spiral experiences suppressed gas accretion upon entering the hot circumgalactic medium of its early-type companion, and that tidal perturbations during close encounters compress cold gas, triggering star formation and rapid chemical enrichment.

What carries the argument

the hot circumgalactic medium of the elliptical companion that suppresses gas accretion into the spiral galaxy, combined with tidal perturbations that can trigger localized star formation

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in star-formation and metallicity radial profiles are caused by the elliptical companion's hot circumgalactic medium and tidal effects rather than by selection biases, mass mismatches, or other environmental factors.

What would settle it

A large sample of mass-matched spiral galaxies in S+E pairs showing no systematic central suppression of star formation or elevation of metallicity compared with field spirals or S+S pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14092 by Cailu Shi, Guozhen Hu, Linlin Li, Shiyin Shen, Shuai Feng, Wenyuan Cui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributions of redshift, stellar mass, Sérsic index, and local environmental density for spiral galaxies in the pair sample and the control sample. The corresponding KS test p-values are labeled in each panel. spiral galaxies in the pair sample and the control sample. The two samples show consistent distributions across all four parameters. We quantify this consistency using Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) tests… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SFR offset within one effective radius (Re) as a function of projected separation (dp) for spiral galaxies in S+S (blue) and S+E (red) pairs. The SFR offset is defined as the difference between each paired galaxy and its matched isolated control. sents the median SFR in a given dp bin, with error bars computed as σ/√ N, where σ is the standard deviation and N is the number of galaxies in the bin. As a ref￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial profiles of log sSFR (top) and 12 + log(O/H) (bottom) for spiral galaxies in close S+S (blue) and S+E (red) pairs. Left panels: Median radial profiles of paired galaxies (solid lines) and their matched isolated controls (dashed lines), plotted as a function of normalized radius (R/Re). Right panels: Radial offsets between paired galaxies and their matched isolated controls. The spaxels are then grou… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial offsets in specific SFR and gas-phase metallicity for LTGs in close S+S and S+E pairs, relative to their matched isolated controls. The top-left and top-right panels show ∆ log(sSFR) and ∆ log(O/H) when the pairs are divided into subsamples by companion galaxy mass, respectively. The bottom-left and bottom-right panels present the corresponding ∆ log(sSFR) and ∆ log(O/H) when the pairs are divided b… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using integral field spectroscopy from SDSS-IV MaNGA, we investigate the radial distributions of star formation rate (SFR) and gas-phase metallicity in spiral galaxies that reside in spiral-elliptical (S+E) pairs. Spirals in S+E pairs show suppressed central star formation and elevated metallicities, whereas spirals in spiral-spiral pairs exhibit centrally enhanced star formation and reduced metallicities. The degree of SFR suppression and metallicity enhancement in S+E pairs depends on the masses of the pair members. Spirals with more massive elliptical companions experience stronger star-formation suppression and larger increases in metallicity, while lower-mass spirals show more pronounced metallicity enhancement. In addition, within S+E systems, galaxies with asymmetric gas velocity fields display enhanced SFR and higher metallicities, whereas those with symmetric velocity fields exhibit clear central suppression. Based on these results, we infer that in S+E pairs, the spiral galaxy experiences suppressed gas accretion once it enters the hot circumgalactic medium of its early-type companion, which leads to the observed decline in star-formation activity. When a close encounter takes place, tidal perturbations can compress the remaining cold gas and trigger enhanced star formation, producing rapid chemical enrichment and the associated increase in metallicity.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes MaNGA integral-field spectroscopy of spiral galaxies in spiral-elliptical (S+E) pairs, reporting that these spirals exhibit centrally suppressed star-formation rates and elevated gas-phase metallicities relative to spirals in spiral-spiral (S+S) pairs, which instead show central SFR enhancement and metallicity reduction. The strength of the S+E effects scales with companion mass and is modulated by gas-velocity-field symmetry (asymmetric fields show the opposite trend). The authors interpret the differences as arising from hot-CGM accretion suppression by the elliptical companion, with tidal encounters triggering star formation and enrichment in the asymmetric subset.

Significance. If the radial-profile differences can be shown to be caused specifically by the elliptical companion rather than by unmatched environmental factors, the work would supply useful observational constraints on the role of hot circumgalactic media in regulating cold-gas accretion and on the efficiency of tidal triggering in galaxy pairs. The use of resolved IFS data to separate central versus outer behavior is a strength, but the current interpretive step from observation to mechanism remains provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] Section 2 (Sample Selection): The S+E and S+S samples are compared after binning only on pair mass ratio; no matching on local galaxy density, group membership, or halo mass is described. Because ellipticals preferentially occupy denser environments, the reported central SFR suppression and metallicity enhancement could reflect pre-existing environmental quenching rather than the elliptical’s hot CGM. A density-matched control sample or explicit environmental metrics are required to support the causal attribution.
  2. [Section 4] Section 4 (Discussion and Interpretation): The claim that asymmetric gas velocity fields trace tidal encounters (while symmetric fields trace pure CGM suppression) is presented without quantitative validation of the asymmetry metric or comparison to hydrodynamical simulations of pair interactions. Internal instabilities or minor mergers unrelated to the companion can also produce velocity asymmetries, weakening the tidal-triggering inference.
  3. [Results] Results (velocity-field split): The reported reversal of trends between symmetric and asymmetric subsets is central to the tidal-encounter argument, yet no statistical significance, bootstrap uncertainties, or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the profile differences are provided. Without these, the robustness of the dichotomy cannot be assessed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures] Figure 3 and 4: Error bands on the stacked radial profiles are not shown in all panels; adding 1σ shaded regions would improve readability and allow direct visual assessment of the reported differences.
  2. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2: The definition of “asymmetric” versus “symmetric” velocity fields is stated qualitatively; a quantitative threshold (e.g., kinematic asymmetry parameter value) should be given explicitly.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract and Section 1: The phrase “the degree depends on the masses of the pair members” is repeated without a supporting figure or table reference; a brief pointer to the relevant mass-binned results would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment point by point below, with clear indications of planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 2 (Sample Selection): The S+E and S+S samples are compared after binning only on pair mass ratio; no matching on local galaxy density, group membership, or halo mass is described. Because ellipticals preferentially occupy denser environments, the reported central SFR suppression and metallicity enhancement could reflect pre-existing environmental quenching rather than the elliptical’s hot CGM. A density-matched control sample or explicit environmental metrics are required to support the causal attribution.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit environmental matching represents a limitation in the current analysis, since ellipticals are known to prefer denser environments that could contribute to quenching effects. Our sample selection emphasized binning by mass ratio to isolate the influence of companion morphology. In the revised manuscript we will incorporate local density and group membership metrics drawn from MaNGA ancillary catalogs and discuss whether the reported trends persist at fixed environment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section 4 (Discussion and Interpretation): The claim that asymmetric gas velocity fields trace tidal encounters (while symmetric fields trace pure CGM suppression) is presented without quantitative validation of the asymmetry metric or comparison to hydrodynamical simulations of pair interactions. Internal instabilities or minor mergers unrelated to the companion can also produce velocity asymmetries, weakening the tidal-triggering inference.

    Authors: The asymmetry metric is defined quantitatively in Section 3 as a measure of deviation from ordered rotation. We recognize that internal instabilities or unrelated minor mergers can also generate kinematic disturbances. In the revision we will expand the discussion to include references to existing hydrodynamical simulations of tidal interactions, provide additional detail on the asymmetry quantification procedure, and explicitly note the interpretive caveats. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Results (velocity-field split): The reported reversal of trends between symmetric and asymmetric subsets is central to the tidal-encounter argument, yet no statistical significance, bootstrap uncertainties, or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the profile differences are provided. Without these, the robustness of the dichotomy cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative statistical support is necessary to assess the robustness of the symmetric versus asymmetric dichotomy. In the revised results section we will add Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing the radial profiles of the two subsets, together with bootstrap-derived uncertainties and reported significance levels for the observed differences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational profile comparison with interpretive inference

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical comparisons of radial SFR and metallicity profiles in MaNGA-observed S+E versus S+S pairs, stratified by companion mass and velocity-field symmetry. No equations, parameter fits, predictions, or self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the central results are measured differences, and the physical interpretation (hot CGM suppression plus tidal triggering) is presented as inference rather than a reduction to prior self-defined inputs. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external data and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely observational and introduces no new mathematical model, so the ledger is nearly empty. Standard assumptions about emission-line diagnostics and pair classification are implicit but not enumerated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gas-phase metallicity is reliably traced by strong-line ratios calibrated on local galaxies
    Implicit in the use of 'gas-phase metallicity' without further justification.
  • domain assumption Star-formation rate is correctly recovered from H-alpha or other tracers after dust correction
    Standard in MaNGA SFR maps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1349 out tokens · 44275 ms · 2026-05-10T12:29:19.230615+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    arXiv , author =:1211.5140 , journal =

    Anderson, M. E., Bregman, J. N., & Dai, X. 2013, ApJ, 762, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/106 2013

  3. [3]

    E., Gaspari, M., White, S

    Anderson, M. E., Gaspari, M., White, S. D. M., Wang, W., & Dai, X. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv437

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  4. [4]

    V., McNamara, B

    Babyk, I. V., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3c9 2018

  5. [5]

    , volume =

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11081.x 2006

  6. [6]

    K., Liske, J., Brown, M

    Baldry, I. K., Liske, J., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3042

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3042 2018

  7. [7]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115, doi: 10.1086/177957

    work page doi:10.1086/177957 1996

  8. [8]

    K., Sánchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Sánchez, S. F., García-Lorenzo, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425397

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 2015

  9. [9]

    B., Schaefer, A., et al

    Belfiore, F., Westfall, K. B., Schaefer, A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e4e 2019

  10. [10]

    R., Schlegel, D

    Blanton, M. R., Schlegel, D. J., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2562, doi: 10.1086/429803

    work page doi:10.1086/429803 2005

  11. [11]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  12. [12]

    N., Anderson, M

    Bregman, J. N., Anderson, M. E., Miller, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe 2018

  13. [13]

    Overview of the SDSS-IV MaNGA Survey: Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  14. [14]

    L., Patton, D

    Bustamante, S., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Sparre, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1025 2020

  15. [15]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

    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

  16. [16]

    K., Domingue, D., et al

    Cao, C., Xu, C. K., Domingue, D., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 16, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/16

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/16 2016

  17. [17]

    2004, A&A, 422, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040283

    Casasola, V., Bettoni, D., & Galletta, G. 2004, A&A, 422, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040283 12 Shi et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040283 2004

  18. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty089

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty089 2018

  19. [19]

    2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    Comparat, J., Truong, N., Merloni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243101

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243101 2022

  20. [20]

    and Hobson, M

    Dekel, A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 386, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x Di Matteo, P., Bournaud, F., Martig, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x 2008

  21. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x 2011

  22. [22]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 2008

  23. [23]

    L., Sánchez, S

    Ellison, S. L., Sánchez, S. F., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2882

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2882 2018

  24. [24]

    S., & Masters, K

    Feng, S., Shen, S.-Y., Yuan, F.-T., Dai, Y. S., & Masters, K. L. 2022, ApJS, 262, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f2 2022

  25. [25]

    A., & Pan, K

    Feng, S., Shen, S.-Y., Yuan, F.-T., Riffel, R. A., & Pan, K. 2020, ApJL, 892, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dba 2020

  26. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343e —

    Feng, S., Shen, S.-Y., Yuan, F.-T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343e —. 2019, ApJ, 880, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24da

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad343e 2024

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Finlator, K., & Davé, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12991.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12991.x 2008

  28. [28]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 167, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/167

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/167 2016

  29. [29]

    , year = 1972, month = aug, volume =

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    work page doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  31. [31]

    K., Domingue, D., Cao, C., & Huang, J.-s

    He, C., Xu, C. K., Domingue, D., Cao, C., & Huang, J.-s. 2022, ApJS, 261, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac73ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac73ec 2022

  32. [32]

    A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: I. Galaxy Mergers & Quasar Activity

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  33. [33]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/99 2016

  34. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/131

    Hwang, J.-S., & Park, C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/131 2015

  35. [35]

    and Heckman, T

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  36. [36]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  37. [37]

    J., Geller, M

    Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Barton, E. J. 2006, AJ, 131, 2004, doi: 10.1086/500295 Krajnović, D., Cappellari, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Copin, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 787, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x

    work page doi:10.1086/500295 2006

  38. [38]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/83

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/83 2016

  39. [39]

    White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13000.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13000.x 2008

  40. [40]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 2013

  41. [41]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84

    Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84 2019

  42. [42]

    K., Gao, Y., et al

    Lisenfeld, U., Xu, C. K., Gao, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935536 2019

  43. [43]

    A., & Hao, L

    Liu, X., Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., & Hao, L. 2011, ApJ, 737, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/101 2011

  44. [44]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002 2015

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Mathews, W. G., & Brighenti, F. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.090401.094542

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.090401.094542 2003

  46. [46]

    and Hobson, M

    McCarthy, I. G., Frenk, C. S., Font, A. S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 593, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12577.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12577.x 2008

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Tissera, P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L82, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x 2008

  48. [48]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641, doi: 10.1086/177353

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/177353 1996

  49. [49]

    D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B

    Montuori, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2010, A&A, 518, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014304

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014304 2010

  50. [50]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3401

    Moon, J.-S., An, S.-H., & Yoon, S.-J. 2019, ApJ, 882, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3401

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3401 2019

  51. [51]

    L., et al

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2952

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2952 2021

  52. [52]

    Cox, T. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3750, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18984.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18984.x 2011

  53. [53]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  54. [54]

    F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J

    Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., & Hsieh, B.-C. 2025, ApJ, 982, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbd2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbbd2 2025

  55. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb92

    Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb92 —. 2019, ApJ, 881, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab311c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb92 2018

  56. [56]

    2009, ApJ, 691, 1828, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1828

    Park, C., & Choi, Y.-Y. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1828, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1828

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1828 2009

  57. [57]

    R., Qamar, F

    Patton, D. R., Qamar, F. D., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1494 Spiral-Ellipical Pairs in MaNGA 13

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1494 2016

  58. [58]

    Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt058 2013

  59. [59]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    Peng, Y., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192, doi: 10.1038/nature14439

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14439 2015

  60. [60]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x 2004

  61. [61]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Kewley, L. J., & Barnes, J. E. 2010, ApJL, 710, L156, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L156

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/l156 2010

  62. [62]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Kramer, C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 32, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18677.x Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Lacerda, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b8f

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18677.x 2011

  63. [63]

    Mendel, J. T. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 549, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21749.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21749.x 2012

  64. [64]

    L., Genzel, R., Förster Schreiber, N

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

    work page doi:10.1086/587133 2008

  65. [65]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 43, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/3/043

    Shen, S.-Y., Argudo-Fernández, M., Chen, L., et al. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 43, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/3/043

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/16/3/043 2016

  66. [66]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2011, ApJS, 196, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/11 2011

  67. [67]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 2013

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x 2005

  69. [69]

    L., Fu, H., Comerford, J

    Steffen, J. L., Fu, H., Comerford, J. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2a5 2021

  70. [70]

    L., Fu, H., Brownstein, J

    Steffen, J. L., Fu, H., Brownstein, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca768

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca768 2023

  71. [71]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810, doi: 10.1086/342343

    work page doi:10.1086/342343 2002

  72. [72]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw303 2016

  73. [73]

    J., Kewley, L., & Hernquist, L

    Torrey, P., Cox, T. J., Kewley, L., & Hernquist, L. 2012, ApJ, 746, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/108 2012

  74. [74]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3286

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3286

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3286 2020

  75. [75]

    A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A

    Wake, D. A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc 2017

  76. [76]

    B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M

    Westfall, K. B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab44a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab44a2 2019

  77. [77]

    K., Domingue, D., Cheng, Y.-W., et al

    Xu, C. K., Domingue, D., Cheng, Y.-W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 330, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/330

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/330 2010

  78. [78]

    A., et al

    Yan, R., Tremonti, C., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2016a, AJ, 151, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/8

  79. [79]

    R., et al

    Yan, R., Bundy, K., Law, D. R., et al. 2016b, AJ, 152, 197, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/197

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/197

  80. [80]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e6

    Yu, Q., Fang, T., Feng, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e6 2022

Showing first 80 references.