pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14136 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The Radial and Vertical Structure of Molecular Gas in the Edge-On Galaxy NGC 4565

Grace Krahm , Adam K. Leroy , Jiayi Sun , Kijeong Yim , Eric W. Koch , Tony Wong , Deanne Fisher , Erik Rosolowsky
show 6 more authors
Karin Sandstrom Dyas Utomo Jesse van de Sande Marie Martig Amelia Fraser-McKelvie Michael R. Hayden
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords NGC 4565molecular gasALMA CO observationsgalactic disk scale heightedge-on galaxyGMC propertiesvertical structureouter disk
0
0 comments X

The pith

ALMA maps show the molecular gas disk in edge-on NGC 4565 stays thin with a constant 79 parsec scale height and little flaring.

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

The paper maps molecular gas in the highly inclined galaxy NGC 4565 using sensitive, high-resolution ALMA CO observations that reach far into the outer disk. It establishes that the gas layer remains thin at all radii, with a measured vertical thickness that shows no increase outward. Cloud sizes, motions, and densities match those seen in other spiral galaxies, while a central gap and an outer gas pileup stand out as distinct features. These results indicate that the molecular component follows a stable, disk-confined distribution even where atomic gas dominates.

Core claim

Fits to position-velocity slices of the CO(2-1) emission yield a molecular disk with FWHM scale height 79.1 ± 1.6 pc that shows little evidence for vertical flaring out to Rgal > 17 kpc. The 13CO/12CO intensity ratio stays steady at 0.086 ± 0.009 between 5 and 13 kpc, and individual molecular clouds display sizes, linewidths, and surface densities consistent with those in the PHANGS-ALMA sample and in M31. A prominent overdensity termed the East Ring Pileup contains a compact, bright star-forming region called the Jewel. Effects of the high inclination appear as second-order corrections that are strongest in the measured velocity dispersion, while the clouds themselves align with the disk.

What carries the argument

Vertical intensity profiles extracted from position-velocity slices of the CO(2-1) emission, which directly measure the thickness of the molecular layer.

If this is right

  • The molecular gas layer remains vertically confined even where the atomic gas dominates the outer disk.
  • Molecular cloud properties are largely insensitive to the edge-on viewing angle except for a modest boost in observed velocity dispersion.
  • A central molecular gap and an outer gas overdensity produce a radial profile more like M31 than the Milky Way.
  • Clouds align with the galactic plane and appear elongated along the line of nodes by a factor of about two.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Constant thinness may be a general feature of molecular disks in spirals, which would simplify vertical structure assumptions in galaxy evolution models.
  • The Jewel complex offers a resolved laboratory for how gas overdensities trigger compact star formation within rings.
  • High-resolution edge-on data such as these can be used to test and calibrate deprojection methods applied to face-on galaxy surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The adopted inclination of 87.5 degrees and the adopted conversion from CO line intensity to molecular gas mass introduce no large systematic offsets in the derived scale height or cloud properties.

What would settle it

An independent geometric measurement of the inclination or an alternate gas tracer that returns a vertical FWHM significantly larger than 80 pc or shows clear increase with radius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14136 by Adam K. Leroy, Amelia Fraser-McKelvie, Deanne Fisher, Dyas Utomo, Eric W. Koch, Erik Rosolowsky, Grace Krahm, Jesse van de Sande, Jiayi Sun, Karin Sandstrom, Kijeong Yim, Marie Martig, Michael R. Hayden, Tony Wong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR14 (Abolfathi et al. 2018) three color image (g, r, and i bands) with field of view of our new ALMA CO(2-1) survey shown as a white box. Our survey covers most of the stellar disk and is shown is detail in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Integrated intensity of 12CO(2-1) for NGC 4565 on a linear scale [left] with zoom-ins across the galaxy from east to west on an arcsinh scale [right]. Throughout the figures, the y-offset is without deprojection. White contours show where 12CO(2-1) integrated intensity exceeds 5σ and cyan contours indicate where 13CO(2-1) integrated intensity exceeds 5σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Position–velocity diagrams integrated along the minor axis showing [left] 12CO(2-1) with HI contours at 5, 10 and 15σ for those data and [right] HI with CO contours at 2, 3 and 5σ after smoothing to the 6” HI resolution . The NGC 4565 rotation curve from Yim et al. (2014) is shown in cyan in both panels. The intensity-weighted velocity (moment 1) map of the 12CO cube is shown in the bottom panel [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity-based galactocentric radii (Rvel) com￾pared to radii based on geometric deprojection (Rdpj ) col￾ored by distance along the y-axis. The cyan shaded region indicates where the rotation curve is rising (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of NGC 4565 with stripe integrals out to 30 kpc. The edge of the 12CO map is shown as a vertical black line. [a] Stellar, molecular gas (H2), atomic gas (HI), and SFR surface density. The SFR surface density has an extra factor of Gyr−1 for full units of M⊙ pc−2 Gyr−1 . Exponential disk fits are shown with dashed black lines. [b] 12CO(2-1) and 13CO(2-1) integrated intensity radial profiles … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vertical (y-offset) profiles in 16 bins along the major (x) axis of NGC 4565. The bin size is 2 beams (∼ 2 ′′) wide. The individual fitted Gaussian components are shown by the dotted magenta lines and the green dashed lines show the composite fit of all the Gaussians [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [Left ] White rectangles show the major (x) axis bins used in our peak identification and Gaussian fitting. Cyan stars show the locations of peaks identified in position velocity space (using the bin center as the x coordinate). [Middle] y-v position velocity (PV) diagram for an example bin. The PV diagram is constructed by summing the data cube along the x dimension within the bin. [Right] Model PV diagra… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [Top] Our fitted σy of structures in NGC 4565 with median σy and 16th-84th percentiles (shaded) are shown in dark blue. The CO scale height from Yim et al. (2014) is shown for comparison. [Middle] Scale heights for CO in NGC 4565 compared to the Milky Way. [Bottom] Scale heights of CO for NGC 5907, NGC 4157, and NGC 891 compared to NGC 4565 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: GMC sizes, velocity dispersions, surface densities, and virial parameters as a function of galactocentric radius. The binned averages are represented as solid colored lines for each galaxy. The distributions of the properties are represented as kernel density estimates (KDEs) to the right. In the σv plot, the 2.5 km/s channel width is shown with a dashed black line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heyer-Keto relation for molecular clouds in NGC 4565 plotting the velocity dispersion normalized by the cloud size, σ 2 v/R, as a function of molecular gas sur￾face density, Σ. The black lines represent virial equilibrium and the red lines represent marginally boundedness. The dashed black and red lines represent those same conditions accounting for external pressure ranging from 102 − 108 K cm−3 (Field e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: GMC R (perpendicular), σv, Σ, and αvir vs. the local environmental (i.e., large scale) molecular gas surface at the Rgal of the GMC. The square markers and gray triangles represent the mass-weighted average in each kpc-wide radial bin. The black dashed line represents the best fit line of the binned properties with the fitting range limited to Σmol,kpc > 100 M⊙ pc−2 to avoid sensitivity biases. The gray s… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: [Top] Cloud position angles estimated using CPROPS measured north through east. The orientation of the major axis of the galaxy (PA = 135◦ ) is shown with a dashed line. 67.7% of cloud position angles are within 30◦ of the galaxy position angle. [Bottom] Ratio of the major to minor axis size of clouds as a function of their position angles. The median and mean axis ratio for NGC 4565 across all position a… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Residuals about the relationships between weighted mean cloud properties and Σmol,kpc from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Multi-wavelength view of the East Ring Pileup which contains the Jewel (A) as the brightest 12CO source, as well as another region (B) which represent the two brightest Hα and 24µm peaks. This includes our high-resolution CO observations, archival Spitzer infrared imaging used previously for the radial profiles, and newly obtained MUSE Hα from the GECKOS survey (J. van de Sande et al. in preparation; van … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Height above the midplane of individual clouds. Red points show the results (incorrectly) attributing all of the y coordinate to vertical location. Blue points show results from contrasting position+velocity measurements with the (x, y) location (Equation A4). The solid lines represent the median height in bins of x for each approach. The yellow shading shows the 16-84% range of the HWHM of the full verti… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Distributions of GMC properties as a function of galactocentric radius comparing the multi-gaussian decomposition method to the CPROPS algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present high-resolution (0.94" $\approx$ 55 pc) ALMA CO(2-1) and 13CO(2-1) observations of the highly inclined (i~87.5 deg) galaxy NGC 4565 covering out to galactocentric radius Rgal > $\pm$ 17 kpc. The combination of sensitivity and resolution enables the detection of CO emission well into the HI-dominated outer disk while isolating individual molecular clouds across the full extent of the galaxy. Although often described as an edge-on Milky Way analog, the molecular gas profile of NGC 4565 has a central gap which is more similar to M31. The 13CO/12CO ratio remains consistent at 0.086 $\pm$ 0.009 from Rgal = 5-13 kpc. Based on fits to position-velocity slices, the molecular disk remains thin, with a FWHM scale height of 79.1 $\pm$ 1.6 pc measured from the vertical intensity profile with little evidence for vertical flaring. Molecular clouds in NGC 4565 show sizes, linewidths, and surface densities consistent with those found in similar environments in PHANGS-ALMA galaxies and in M31. We identify a prominent star-forming complex on the ring-an overdensity of molecular gas we term the East Ring Pileup. This feature hosts a compact, multiwavelength-bright region, which we call the Jewel. Effects of galaxy inclination on molecular cloud radius, velocity dispersion, surface density, and virial parameter appear as second-order effects that are strongest in velocity dispersion. At this resolution, GMCs are preferentially aligned with the disk of the galaxy and horizontally elongated by a factor of~2.

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 paper reports high-resolution ALMA CO(2-1) and 13CO(2-1) observations of the edge-on galaxy NGC 4565 (i ≈ 87.5°), covering galactocentric radii out to >17 kpc at ~55 pc resolution. It finds a central molecular gas gap resembling M31, a constant 13CO/12CO intensity ratio of 0.086 ± 0.009 between 5–13 kpc, a thin molecular disk with FWHM scale height 79.1 ± 1.6 pc and little vertical flaring from vertical intensity profiles and PV-slice fits, GMC properties (sizes, linewidths, surface densities) consistent with PHANGS-ALMA and M31 samples, and identifies the East Ring Pileup and Jewel star-forming complex. Inclination effects on cloud parameters are described as second-order, with GMCs preferentially aligned and elongated along the disk.

Significance. If the thin-disk result and lack of flaring are robust, the work supplies a rare, resolved benchmark for molecular gas vertical structure in a highly inclined spiral, enabling direct comparison to the Milky Way and face-on systems. The consistency of cloud scaling relations across environments and the identification of outer-disk molecular gas strengthen constraints on disk stability and GMC formation models.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3] §3.3 (vertical intensity profile and scale-height measurement): The reported FWHM of 79.1 ± 1.6 pc is only ~1.4× the 0.94″ (~55 pc) beam; the text does not describe an explicit beam deconvolution step or forward-modeling of the observed profile, so the thinness and lack of flaring could partly reflect resolution rather than intrinsic structure.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (PV-slice fits for disk thickness): At i = 87.5°, the line of sight still integrates over ~1–2 kpc radially at large Rgal; the fitting procedure does not appear to marginalize over plausible inclination uncertainty (±0.5–1°), which would directly affect the deprojected scale height and the claim of no flaring.
  3. [§4] §4 (cloud property comparisons): The statement that inclination effects are “second-order” and strongest only in velocity dispersion is not accompanied by a quantitative test (e.g., mock observations at varying i); this weakens the assertion that the reported sizes, linewidths, and virial parameters are directly comparable to face-on samples.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2] The abstract and §2 should state the exact method and assumptions used to convert 12CO intensity to H2 surface density, including any adopted X_CO value and its uncertainty.
  2. Figure captions for the vertical profiles and PV diagrams should explicitly note whether the displayed curves include beam convolution or are deconvolved.
  3. Add a short paragraph in the discussion comparing the derived 79 pc scale height to literature values for the Milky Way and other edge-on galaxies (e.g., NGC 891, NGC 5907).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below and agree that several clarifications will strengthen the presentation of our results on the vertical structure and cloud properties. We will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.3] §3.3 (vertical intensity profile and scale-height measurement): The reported FWHM of 79.1 ± 1.6 pc is only ~1.4× the 0.94″ (~55 pc) beam; the text does not describe an explicit beam deconvolution step or forward-modeling of the observed profile, so the thinness and lack of flaring could partly reflect resolution rather than intrinsic structure.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the reported scale height is comparable to the beam size and that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit description of how the beam was accounted for. The vertical intensity profiles were extracted from the primary beam corrected data cube and fitted with Gaussians after subtracting the contribution from the synthesized beam in quadrature for the reported FWHM. To address the concern directly, we will add a dedicated paragraph in §3.3 describing this procedure and include a simple forward-modeling test (convolving model thin disks of varying intrinsic heights with the beam and comparing to the data) to demonstrate that the lack of flaring is not an artifact of resolution. These changes will be incorporated in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (PV-slice fits for disk thickness): At i = 87.5°, the line of sight still integrates over ~1–2 kpc radially at large Rgal; the fitting procedure does not appear to marginalize over plausible inclination uncertainty (±0.5–1°), which would directly affect the deprojected scale height and the claim of no flaring.

    Authors: The PV-slice analysis in §3.2 used the nominal inclination of 87.5° derived from the HI kinematics. At such high inclination the deprojected height is relatively insensitive to small changes in i, but we agree that explicitly testing the effect of the quoted uncertainty is warranted. In the revision we will add a short sensitivity analysis in which we repeat the fits at i = 87.0° and 88.0° and show that the conclusion of little vertical flaring remains unchanged. We will also note the approximate radial integration length along the line of sight at large Rgal for context. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (cloud property comparisons): The statement that inclination effects are “second-order” and strongest only in velocity dispersion is not accompanied by a quantitative test (e.g., mock observations at varying i); this weakens the assertion that the reported sizes, linewidths, and virial parameters are directly comparable to face-on samples.

    Authors: Our statement that inclination effects are second-order is based on the clear horizontal elongation of GMCs seen in the data and on the fact that the derived sizes, linewidths, and surface densities remain consistent with PHANGS-ALMA and M31 samples despite the high inclination. We agree that a quantitative mock-observation test would provide stronger support. Performing a full suite of mocks is beyond the scope of the present work, but we will expand the discussion in §4 to include a simple geometric projection model that quantifies the expected bias in radius and velocity dispersion as a function of inclination, and we will cite relevant literature on projection effects in edge-on systems. This will be added as a partial revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational measurements from direct fits

full rationale

The central result (FWHM scale height 79.1 ± 1.6 pc, no flaring) is obtained by fitting observed vertical intensity profiles and position-velocity slices extracted from the ALMA CO data cubes. All reported quantities (cloud sizes, linewidths, surface densities, 13CO/12CO ratio) are likewise measured directly from the data with explicit assumptions about inclination (87.5°) and X_CO conversion. No theoretical derivation, self-referential equation, or load-bearing self-citation is invoked to obtain these values; the paper contains no predictions that reduce to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is observational and relies on standard radio-astronomy assumptions rather than new theoretical constructs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption CO(2-1) emission traces molecular hydrogen with a standard conversion factor
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting line intensities as gas masses and surface densities
  • domain assumption The galaxy inclination is 87.5 degrees
    Used to deproject radii and interpret vertical structure

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5676 in / 1304 out tokens · 42335 ms · 2026-05-10T12:19:56.453018+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

97 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 11 https://linmix.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  3. [3]

    E., & Hernquist, L

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

    work page doi:10.1086/177957 1996

  4. [4]

    K., Williams, T

    Belfiore, F., Leroy, A. K., Williams, T. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347175

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347175 2023

  5. [5]

    2012 , month = apr, journal =

    Bendo, G. J., Galliano, F., & Madden, S. C. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20784.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20784.x 2012

  6. [6]

    L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al

    Block, D. L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 832, doi: 10.1038/nature05184 27 Figure 16.Distributions of GMC properties as a function of galactocentric radius comparing the multi-gaussian decomposition method to theCPROPSalgorithm. 28

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05184 2006

  7. [7]

    and Wolfire, Mark and Leroy, Adam K

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  8. [8]

    D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al

    Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa86aa 2017

  9. [9]

    1988, ApJ, 324, 248, doi: 10.1086/165892

    Thaddeus, P. 1988, ApJ, 324, 248, doi: 10.1086/165892

    work page doi:10.1086/165892 1988

  10. [10]

    D., Zabel, N., et al

    Brown, T., Wilson, C. D., Zabel, N., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac28f5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac28f5 2021

  11. [11]

    J., Natarajan, P., Baldassare, V

    Burke, C. J., Natarajan, P., Baldassare, V. F., & Geha, M. 2025, ApJ, 978, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94d9 2025

  12. [12]

    B., Gordon, M

    Burton, W. B., Gordon, M. A., Bania, T. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1975, ApJ, 202, 30, doi: 10.1086/153950

    work page doi:10.1086/153950 1975

  13. [13]

    1996, FCPh, 17, 95 Cald´ u-Primo, A., & Schruba, A

    Buta, R., & Combes, F. 1996, FCPh, 17, 95 Cald´ u-Primo, A., & Schruba, A. 2016, AJ, 151, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/34 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/34 1996

  14. [14]

    2024, A&A, 690, A348, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451033

    Chastenet, J., De Looze, I., Rela˜ no, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A348, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451033

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451033 2024

  15. [15]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2697

    Chiang, I.-D., Hirashita, H., Chastenet, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2697

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2697 2025

  16. [16]

    H., Kenney, J

    Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, AJ, 138, 1741, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741 2009

  17. [17]

    P., Sanders, D

    Clemens, D. P., Sanders, D. B., & Scoville, N. Z. 1988, ApJ, 327, 139, doi: 10.1086/166177

    work page doi:10.1086/166177 1988

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Cormier, D., Bigiel, F., Jim´ enez-Donaire, M. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty059

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty059 2018

  19. [19]

    M., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., & Thaddeus, P. 1985, ApJ, 297, 751, doi: 10.1086/163573 den Brok, J. S., Chatzigiannakis, D., Bigiel, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab859

    work page doi:10.1086/163573 1985

  20. [20]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium (Princeton University Press)

    2011

  21. [21]

    2024, A&A, 691, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449944

    Eibensteiner, C., Sun, J., Bigiel, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449944

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449944 2024

  22. [22]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 1989, ApJ, 338, 178, doi: 10.1086/167192

    work page doi:10.1086/167192 1989

  23. [23]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  24. [24]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Field, G. B., Blackman, E. G., & Keto, E. R. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 710, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19091.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19091.x 2011

  25. [25]

    K., Johnson, K

    Finn, M. K., Johnson, K. E., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d1e 2019

  26. [26]

    A., et al

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., van de Sande, J., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A237, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452891

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452891 2025

  27. [27]

    F., Heyer , M., Narayanan , G., et al

    Goldsmith, P. F., Heyer, M., Narayanan, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 428, doi: 10.1086/587166

    work page doi:10.1086/587166 2008

  28. [28]

    F., et al

    Harmsen, B., Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2992 2017

  29. [29]

    2011, A&A, 526, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938 —

    Heald, G., J´ ozsa, G., Serra, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938 —. 2012, A&A, C1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938e

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015938 2011

  30. [30]

    N., Pety, J., Hughes, A., et al

    Herrera, C. N., Pety, J., Hughes, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936060

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936060 2020

  31. [31]

    Heyer, M., & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 2015

  32. [32]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1092 2009

  33. [33]

    E., Colombo, D., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/46 2013

  34. [34]

    R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C

    Hunter, T. R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 074501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ace216

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ace216 2023

  35. [35]

    W., Leroy, A

    Koch, E. W., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E. W., et al. 2025, ApJS, 279, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ade0ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ade0ad 2025

  36. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdff

    Kormendy, J., & Bender, R. 2019, ApJ, 872, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdff

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

  37. [37]

    K., Indebetouw, R., et al

    Krahm, G., Finn, M. K., Indebetouw, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2451

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2451 2024

  38. [38]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2017, Star Formation (World Scientific Publishing), doi: 10.1142/10091

    work page doi:10.1142/10091 2017

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250, doi: 10.1086/431734

    work page doi:10.1086/431734 2005

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Langer, W. D., & Penzias, A. A. 1990, ApJ, 357, 477, doi: 10.1086/168935

    work page doi:10.1086/168935 1990

  41. [41]

    K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4670, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4670

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4670 2009

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/16

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/16 2016

  43. [43]

    K., Sandstrom, K

    Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K. M., Lang, D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925 2019

  44. [44]

    K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021a, ApJS, 255, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

  45. [45]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021b, ApJS, 257, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

  46. [46]

    K., Sandstrom, K., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf85

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaf85 2023

  47. [47]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3529

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3529 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 990, L37, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73

    Lian, J., Wang, T., Feng, Q., Huang, Y., & Guo, H. 2025, ApJL, 990, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfc73 2025

  49. [49]

    Lucy, L. B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745, doi: 10.1086/111605

    work page doi:10.1086/111605 1974

  50. [50]

    2024, A&A, 690, A372, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451412 Mac Low, M.-M., Elitzur, M., Stone, J

    Luo, G., Colzi, L., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A372, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451412

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451412 2024

  51. [51]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 2007

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Wyckoff, S. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1126, doi: 10.1086/497123 29 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    work page doi:10.1086/497123 2005

  53. [53]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 847, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.5.847

    Nakanishi, H., & Sofue, Y. 2006, PASJ, 58, 847, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.5.847

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/58.5.847 2006

  54. [54]

    A., Lepp, S., & Melnick, G

    Neufeld, D. A., Lepp, S., & Melnick, G. J. 1995, ApJS, 100, 132, doi: 10.1086/192211

    work page doi:10.1086/192211 1995

  55. [55]

    2006, A&A, 453, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035672

    Nieten, C., Neininger, N., Gu´ elin, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035672

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035672 2006

  56. [56]

    Olling, R. P. 1996, AJ, 112, 457, doi: 10.1086/118028

    work page doi:10.1086/118028 1996

  57. [57]

    C., & Kim, C.-G

    Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, C.-G. 2022, ApJ, 936, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2 2022

  58. [58]

    K., Thompson, T

    Pathak, D., Leroy, A. K., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad110d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad110d 2024

  59. [59]

    C., et al

    Peltonen, J., Rosolowsky, E., Johnson, L. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1430

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1430 2023

  60. [60]

    E., Rosolowsky, E

    Pineda, J. E., Rosolowsky, E. W., & Goodman, A. A. 2009, ApJL, 699, L134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l134 2009

  61. [61]

    Richardson, W. H. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 62, 55 Rodr´ ıguez, M. J., Lee, J. C., Indebetouw, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbb69 1972

  62. [62]

    M., et al

    Roman-Duval, J., Heyer, M., Brunt, C. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/144

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/144 2016

  63. [63]

    2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    Rosolowsky, E., & Leroy, A. 2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    work page doi:10.1086/502982 2006

  64. [65]

    K., et al

    Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab085 S´ anchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx808

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab085 2021

  65. [66]

    Schinnerer, E., & Leroy, A. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 369, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 2024

  66. [67]

    2019, A&A, 632, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834995

    Schmidt, P., Krause, M., Heesen, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834995

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834995 2019

  67. [68]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Sana, H., Evans, C. J., et al. 2018, Science, 359, 69, doi: 10.1126/science.aan0106

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan0106 2018

  68. [69]

    Schruba, A., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Leroy, A. K. 2019, ApJ, 883, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a43 2019

  69. [70]

    Z., & Solomon, P

    Scoville, N. Z., & Solomon, P. M. 1975, ApJL, 199, L105, doi: 10.1086/181859

    work page doi:10.1086/181859 1975

  70. [71]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/100

    Seo, W.-Y., & Kim, W.-T. 2013, ApJ, 769, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/100 2013

  71. [72]

    L., et al

    Sheth, K., Regan, M., Hinz, J. L., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 1397, doi: 10.1086/657638

    work page doi:10.1086/657638 2010

  72. [73]

    C., Heesen, V., Br¨ uggen, M., et al

    Smolinski, D. C., Heesen, V., Br¨ uggen, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A374, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557531 S¨ oding, L., Edenhofer, G., Enßlin, T. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02859, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02859

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557531 2026

  73. [74]

    , keywords =

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730, doi: 10.1086/165493

    work page doi:10.1086/165493 1987

  74. [75]

    C., Barnes, A

    Sormani, M. C., Barnes, A. T., Sun, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1554

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1554 2023

  75. [76]

    and Schruba, Andreas and Rosolowsky, Erik and Hughes, Annie and Kruijssen, J

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schruba, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac326

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac326 2018

  76. [77]

    K., Schinnerer, E., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2020a, ApJL, 901, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb3be

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb3be 2041

  77. [78]

    K., Ostriker, E

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 892, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab781c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab781c

  78. [79]

    K., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac74bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac74bd 2022

  79. [80]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05214 van de Sande, J., Fraser-McKelvie, A., Fisher, D

    Sun, J., Teng, Y.-H., Chiang, I.-D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05214 van de Sande, J., Fraser-McKelvie, A., Fisher, D. B., et al. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 377, Early Disk-Galaxy Formation from JWST to the Milky Way, ed. F. Tabatabaei, B. Barbuy, & Y.-S. Ting, 27–33, doi: 10.1017/S1743921323001138

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05214 2025

  80. [81]

    Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2563, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2563

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2563 2008

Showing first 80 references.