Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 117 references

The SUPERCOLD-CGM survey: II. [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ emission and the physical conditions of cold gas in Enormous Ly$\alpha$ nebulae at $z\,\sim\,2$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Atomic-carbon observations of ten quasars at redshift 2 show dense molecular gas and hint at cold circumgalactic gas in nine fields.

desk verdict A genuinely new [C I] survey of ten ELANe QSOs with solid line-ratio results, but the CGM claims rest on a completeness assumption that one source's own size measurement partially contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05805 v1 pith:VG7FE6JC submitted 2025-02-09 astro-ph.GA

Jianan Li , Bjorn H. C. Emonts , Zheng Cai , Jianrui Li , Ran Wang , Montserrat Villar-Martín , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Mingyu Li
show 8 more authors
Yunjing Wu Ilsang Yoon Matthew D. Lehnert Kyle Massingill Craig Sarazin Jason X Prochaska Mark Lacy Brian Mason
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords CircumgalacticmediumInterstellarHigh-redshiftgalaxiesQuasarsMoleculargasAtomiccarbonemissionEnormousLy-alphanebulaeALMAobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports observations of the atomic-carbon line [C I](1-0) and dust continuum in ten ultraluminous quasars at redshift about 2, each embedded in an enormous Lyman-alpha nebula. It detects the line and dust in all ten quasars and in five companion galaxies, and argues that the gas there is denser and exposed to stronger radiation than in local luminous infrared galaxies or high-redshift main-sequence galaxies, with the quasars the most extreme. Combining [C I](1-0) with CO(4-3) and dust continuum, the paper finds a low CO-to-H2 conversion factor of about 0.8 for both the quasars and the companions. After tapering the data to lower resolution, nine quasars show a [C I](1-0) flux excess that may signal cold molecular gas in the circumgalactic medium on scales of 16-40 kpc, but only Q0050+0051 has a tentative 2.7 sigma detection; the other fields give upper limits. If real, this molecular circumgalactic gas would represent less than 0.4-3% of the total baryonic mass of the halo.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic machinery is a pair of line ratios read against a photo-dissociation region model grid: $L'_{\rm [C I]}/L'_{\rm CO(4-3)}$ and $L_{\rm [C I]}/L_{\rm FIR(SF)}$. The first ratio tracks the molecular hydrogen density because CO(4-3) has a much higher critical density ($8.7\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$) than [C I](1-0) ($470$ cm$^{-3}$); the second tracks the strength of the ambient radiation field $G_0$. To search the CGM, the paper combines the 7 m and 12 m arrays and applies uv-tapering with an 18.75 k$\lambda$ baseline cutoff, reaching beams of about 5 arcsec, so any [C I] flux above the compact 12 m measurement is attributed to emission on 16-40 kpc scales. Molecular gas masses are then derived three ways: from [C I](1-0) with the standard carbon-abundance formula, from CO(4-3) with $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ and $R_{41}$, and from dust continuum with a modified black body at $T_{\rm dust}=47$ K and an assumed dust-to-gas ratio.

What would settle it

A deeper [C I](1-0) map of Q0050+0051 that resolves the 16-40 kpc excess into compact clumps coincident with known companion galaxies, or that reproduces the full tapered flux with a rotating-disk model of the host, would disprove the molecular-CGM interpretation; a stacked detection across all ten fields that does not grow with integration time would similarly undermine it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the cold molecular gas in these ten enormous Ly-$\alpha$ nebulae is extreme: the [C I](1-0) and dust detections in all ten QSOs and five companions imply molecular hydrogen densities near $10^{4.4}$-$10^{4.8}$ cm$^{-3}$ and radiation fields near $10^{3.3}$-$10^{3.7}$ in Habing units, higher than in high-redshift main-sequence galaxies and local luminous infrared galaxies, with the quasars at the top of the range. A second claim is that comparing CO(4-3), [C I](1-0), and dust-based gas masses yields a common low conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO}\sim0.8$ $\rm M_\odot\,[K\,km/s\,pc^2]^{-1}$, so these systems are starburst-like rather than typical star-forming disks. The third and most consequential claim is circumstantial: after uv-tapering the 7 m + 12 m data, nine of ten QSOs show more [C I](1-0) flux than the compact 12 m measurement, which the paper reads as possible molecular gas in the circumgalactic medium on 16-40 kpc scales; only Q0050+0051 yields a 2.7 $\sigma$ excess with $M_{\rm H_2}=(1.0-2.8)\times10^{10}$ $M_\odot$, while the other fields give 3 $\sigma$ upper limits of $(0.2-1.4)\times10^{10}$ $M_\odot$, corresponding to less than 0.4-3% of the halo's baryons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 12 m array data recover all the host-galaxy ISM emission, so the extra [C I] flux seen after uv-tapering must come from the CGM rather than from an extended disk or unresolved low-mass companions; with only a single 2.7 sigma detection, that assumption is not directly verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the line-ratio interpretation is right, the molecular gas in these redshift-about-2 QSO hosts is denser and more strongly irradiated than in typical high-redshift star-forming galaxies, so the QSO environment itself, not just the starburst, sets the ISM conditions.
  • A common $\alpha_{\rm CO}\sim0.8$ for QSOs and companions means CO-based molecular gas masses for such systems should not rely on the Milky Way value of about 3.6; using starburst-like values brings the three tracers into agreement.
  • If the uv-tapering excess is CGM emission, then cold molecular gas is present at 16-40 kpc around most of these QSOs but holds less than 3% of the halo baryon budget, so most CGM baryons must be in other phases.
  • The tentative CGM detection in Q0050+0051 has a [C I]/CO ratio above 0.8, implying lower-density, less-irradiated gas in the CGM than in the host ISM, a property that can distinguish between infall and outflow origins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step, which the paper notes is in preparation, is to stack the [C I] spectra of all ten fields; if the stacked excess is significant, it would convert a set of 0.5-2.7 sigma hints into a statistical detection of a molecular CGM.
  • If the CGM masses hold, feedback models of massive halos at cosmic noon should predict that the cold molecular phase is a minor reservoir compared with ionized and atomic gas; otherwise, deeper observations should find much more [C I] than these limits allow.
  • The same ratio diagnostics could be applied to the already-detected extended CO(4-3) gas in these fields; a strict upper limit on [C I]/CO in the extended component would directly test whether the CGM gas is denser than the tentative Q0050+0051 detection suggests.
  • Because the paper assumes solar or supersolar metallicity for the dust-based masses, a metallicity gradient in the CGM would change the derived baryon fractions; measuring CGM metallicity through absorption lines would be a testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA 12 m and ACA 7 m observations of [C I](1-0) and dust continuum in ten Enormous Lyα Nebulae hosting ultra-luminous Type-1 QSOs at z~2.2-2.5. It reports [C I] detections in all ten QSOs and five companion galaxies, derives gas densities and radiation fields from [C I]/CO(4-3) and [C I]/FIR ratios, compares molecular gas masses from CO(4-3), [C I], and dust, and claims a low CO-to-H2 conversion factor αCO~0.8 for both QSOs and companions. After uv-tapering, nine QSOs show an apparent [C I] flux excess, which the paper interprets as tentative evidence for molecular CGM on 16-40 kpc scales, with one 2.7σ detection in Q0050+0051 and 3σ upper limits elsewhere; these are translated into molecular CGM baryon fractions of <0.4-3%.

Significance. If the CGM interpretation holds, this is one of the first systematic constraints on cold molecular gas in the CGM of z~2 ELANe, and the baryon-fraction limits are a useful step for feedback models. The paper's strengths are the robust [C I] detections in the QSOs and companions, the explicit and careful treatment of the tentative 2.7σ CGM detection, the use of both 12 m and 7 m arrays to address surface-brightness sensitivity, and the detailed tables of fluxes, sizes, and derived masses. The physical-condition result (higher n_H2 and G0 in QSOs than in main-sequence galaxies and local ULIRGs) rests primarily on measured line ratios and is comparatively secure. The main caveats concern the CGM flux-excess interpretation and the partly assumed nature of the αCO conclusion, neither of which undermines the core line detections.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2 and Table A1] The CGM interpretation of the uv-tapered flux excess rests on the assumption that the 12 m beam fully recovers the QSO's ISM emission. Table A1 gives a deconvolved [C I] major axis of 3.11±1.18 arcsec (~25±10 kpc) for Q1230+3320, which exceeds the 16 kpc threshold used to define CGM, and the convolved sizes of Q1228+3128 and Q1416+2649 are also ~1.5σ above the beam. Because the 12 m fluxes are measured at the peak pixel rather than integrated over the source, a marginally resolved ISM would produce a spuriously low S_12 and hence a spuriously positive S_taper−S_12. The 22% excess seen in Q1230+3320 is of the order expected from simply recovering missing flux from a ~25 kpc disk, which would invalidate the molecular CGM mass and baryon fraction for that field and weaken the statistical claim of excess in nine QSOs. Please quantify the expected flux recovery from the measured Gaussian sizes, or re-measure the 12 m fluxes by integrating over the source or fitting visibilities; if this cannot be done, the CGM interpretation should be restricted to sources with demonstrably unresolved ISM and the baryon-fraction limits recomputed accordingly.
  2. [4.3.4 and abstract] The claim that the QSOs and companions display a similarly low αCO~0.8 is partly an input rather than a result. For the QSOs, Eq. (5) is evaluated with αCO=0.8 and R41=0.87, and Eq. (8) with X_CI=8.4×10^-5, so the agreement between M_CO and M_CI is a consistency check of these adopted calibrations against the observed r_CI/CO, not a measurement of αCO. For the companions, the 'starburst' case imposes αCO=0.8, R41=0.85, and X_CI=8.4×10^-5, while the 'star-forming' case imposes αCO=3.6, R41=0.17, and X_CI=3.0×10^-5, so the choice between the two scenarios largely determines the conclusion. I recommend reframing Section 4.3.4 as a calibration-consistency exercise, or fitting the relevant parameter combination (e.g., αCO/R41 or αCO/X_CI) with uncertainties, and softening the abstract claim accordingly.
  3. [3.2] The companion-galaxy alternative to the CGM interpretation is acknowledged but not quantitatively excluded. The authors note that the excess is 15-78% of S_12 and that one or two companions just below the 3σ limit could produce it, and they argue that CO(4-3) would be detected unless the companions are low-metallicity. Since low-metallicity companions are plausible in the CGM context and the CO argument is indirect, the statement that the excess 'hints at cold CGM in the majority of targets' should be further qualified. A useful addition would be a stacked search for the excess in regions offset from the QSOs and from known companions, or a visibility-based test that distinguishes a central extended component from off-center point sources.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2] The sentence 'Therefore, argue that the contribution from companion galaxies...' is missing a subject; it should read 'Therefore, we argue...'.
  2. [4.3.5] In the sentence about the CO(4-3) upper limit for Q0050+0051, the units are given as '10^10 L⊙'; this should be '10^10 M⊙'.
  3. [Figure 5] Figure 5 appears to display only a single labeled point (Q0050+0051) even though the caption refers to red squares in the plural; if all nine QSOs with flux excess are plotted, individual labels or a legend would help the reader assess the scatter.
  4. [Appendix, Table A1] The statement in the appendix that 'the source sizes agree with the beam sizes within 2σ uncertainties' is correct but should explicitly mention that Q1230+3320 has a deconvolved major axis at ~2.6σ, since this is the source most relevant to the CGM discussion.
  5. [3.1] In the paragraph on Q1228+3128, the text says the CGM r_CI/CO upper limit is <0.35, but it would be helpful to state the exact [C I] flux limit used so the reader can reproduce the value.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The QSO alpha_CO ~ 0.8 claim restates an adopted input rather than a measurement; the CGM and PDR-based conclusions remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3.4 (Comparing the molecular gas mass in the ISM) and Abstract]
    "We adopt αCO = 0.8 M⊙[K km/s pc2]−1 and R41 = 0.87 to estimate the molecular gas mass from the CO(4−3) line, and X[C I] = 8.4 × 10−5 to derive the molecular gas based on [C I](1 − 0) for the QSOs in our sample ... This suggests that the QSOs and companions are likely starbursts, and both have a low conversion factor of αCO ∼ 0.8 M⊙[K km/s pc2]−1."

    For the QSOs, αCO = 0.8 is an adopted input value, described as 'typical for QSOs', rather than a quantity inferred from the observations. The summary claim that the QSOs display αCO ~ 0.8 therefore restates the assumption instead of reporting an independent measurement. The agreement between the CO(4−3)-based and [C I](1−0)-based molecular gas masses is a consistency check between two tracer calibrations that both assume starburst-like parameters, so it cannot by itself confirm a low conversion factor for the QSOs. The companion galaxies are treated differently because the paper explicitly tests both the starburst and star-forming parameter sets, making the companion conclusion non-circular.

full rationale

The paper's core measurements—[C I](1−0) fluxes, luminosities, line ratios, and the tapered-versus-12m flux differences—are new observational quantities. The physical-condition interpretation compares the measured ratios to the external PhotoDissociation Region Toolbox models, and the molecular gas masses use standard, separately published conversion factors. The companion-galaxy alpha_CO conclusion is tested against two explicit scenarios, so it does not reduce to the input. The only mild circular element is the summary statement that QSOs display alpha_CO ~ 0.8, because for the QSOs this value is adopted rather than measured; however, the paper clearly states the adopted values, and the tracer consistency is not mathematically forced. The CGM flux-excess interpretation depends on the assumption that the 12 m array fully recovers the ISM, which the paper acknowledges and qualifies with low significance; the Q1230+3320 deconvolved size above 16 kpc is a robustness tension but not a derivation-circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional equivalence drives the central CGM or physical-condition results.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are observational, but the derived gas masses, densities, and radiation fields depend on a chain of standard conversion factors and model assumptions, all taken from the literature. The assumption that the tapered-data flux excess represents CGM emission is specific to this paper and is the least externally anchored step.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha_CO (CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 0.8 Msun (K km/s pc^2)^-1
    Adopted from starburst literature (Downes & Solomon 1998). For QSOs it is assumed, not fitted; for companions it is chosen in the starburst scenario and compared to the star-forming scenario with alpha_CO=3.6.
  • R41 (CO(4-3)/CO(1-0) luminosity ratio) = 0.87 (QSOs), 0.85 (starburst companions), 0.17 (star-forming companions)
    Adopted from literature (Carilli & Walter 2013). Directly scales the CO-based molecular gas mass.
  • X_CI (carbon abundance relative to H2) = 8.4e-5 (starburst/QSO), 3.0e-5 (normal star-forming)
    Adopted from literature (Weiss et al. 2003; Walter et al. 2011). Directly scales the [C I]-based molecular gas mass.
  • T_ex (excitation temperature for [C I]) = 29.1 K, giving Q10=0.457
    Median value for high-z SMGs and QSOs (Walter et al. 2011). Used in the [C I] mass formula.
  • T_dust (dust temperature) = 47 K (with scenarios at 80 K)
    Assumed typical for QSO hosts (Bianchi 2013). Affects the dust-based molecular gas mass estimate.
  • beta (dust emissivity index) = 1.6
    Assumed typical for QSO hosts (Bianchi 2013). Used in the MBB dust SED model.
  • delta_DGR (dust-to-gas ratio) = 1/100 or 1/50
    From De Vis et al. (2019) metallicity relation. They assume solar or super-solar metallicity; this directly converts dust mass to molecular gas mass.
  • Halo mass for baryon fraction calculation = 10^12.5 Msun
    Assumed typical halo mass for QSOs (White et al. 2012; Pizzati et al. 2024). Used to convert CGM mass limits to baryon fraction limits.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_L=0.7.
    Adopted in Section 1 for distance and scale conversions. Standard but unproven in the paper.
  • domain assumption PhotoDissociation Region Toolbox models (Kaufman et al. 2006) accurately describe the relation between line ratios and gas density/radiation field.
    Used in Section 4.2 to convert observed L[CI]/LCO and L[CI]/LFIR ratios into n(H2) and G0 estimates.
  • domain assumption The adopted conversion relations for molecular gas mass (Eqs. 5-12) are valid for these sources.
    Sections 4.3.1-4.3.3 rely on standard but empirical conversions from CO, [C I], and dust to M_mol.
  • ad hoc to paper The excess [C I] flux after uv-tapering is due to CGM emission rather than resolved-out disk emission or unresolved companions.
    Section 3.2 states this assumption and partially argues against companions using CO(4-3) non-detections, but cannot fully exclude a disk contribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The definition of the CGM as all [C I] emission on scales greater than 16 kpc is appropriate.
    Section 3.2 explicitly calls this definition 'somewhat arbitrary' but consistent with other high-z studies.
  • ad hoc to paper The QSOs and companion galaxies in each field have similar metallicity and dust-to-gas ratio for the dust-based mass comparison.
    Section 4.3.4 assumes no significant metallicity differences between the QSOs and companions to justify using the same delta_DGR.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The SUPERCOLD-CGM survey: II. [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ emission and the physical conditions of cold gas in Enormous Ly$\alpha$ nebulae at $z\,\sim\,2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VG7FE6JC

@misc{pith2026250205805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The SUPERCOLD-CGM survey: II. [\ionC1]$(1-0)$ emission and the physical conditions of cold gas in Enormous Ly$\alpha$ nebulae at $z\,\sim\,2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VG7FE6JC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05805}
}
abstract

We report ALMA and ACA observations of atomic carbon ([\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$) and dust continuum in 10 Enormous Ly$\alpha$ Nebulae hosting ultra-luminous Type-I QSOs at $z=2.2-2.5$, as part of the SUrvey of Protocluster ELANe Revealing CO/CI in the Ly$\alpha$ Detected CGM (SUPERCOLD-CGM). We detect [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ and dust in all ten QSOs and five companion galaxies. We find that the QSOs and companions have higher gas densities and more intense radiation fields than Luminous Infrared galaxies and high-$z$ main sequence galaxies, with the highest values found in the QSOs. By comparing molecular gas masses derived from [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$, CO(4$-$3) and dust continuum, we find that the QSOs and companions display a similar low CO conversion factor of $\alpha_{\rm CO}$\,$\sim$\,0.8 $\rm M_{\sun}$${[\rm K\,km/s\,pc^2]}^{-1}$. After tapering our data to low resolution, the [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ flux increases for nine QSOs, hinting at the possibility of [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ in the circum-galactic medium (CGM) on a scale of 16$-$40 kpc. However, the [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ sensitivity is too low to confirm this for individual targets, except for a tentative (2.7$\sigma$) CGM detection in Q0050+0051{} with M$_{\rm H_2}$\,=\, ($1.0 - 2.8$)$\times 10^{10}$ $\rm M_{\sun}$. The 3$\sigma$ mass limits of molecular CGM for the remaining QSO fields are ($0.2-1.4$)\,$\times$\,10$^{10}$ $\rm M_{\sun}$. This translates into a baryon fraction of $<$0.4-3$\% $ in the molecular CGM relative to the total baryonic halo mass. Our sample also includes a radio-detected AGN, Q1416+2649{}, which shows [\ion{C}{1}]$(1-0)$ and CO(4$-$3) luminosities an order of magnitude fainter for its far-infrared luminosity than other QSOs in our sample, possibly due to a lower molecular gas mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [C I](1 − 0) intensity maps for the QSOs. Color bars show scale in a unit of Jy beam−1 × km s−1 . We show the contours with a factor of 2× increase, except for the last one which we highlight the peak of the emission. Contours denote [-2,2,4,8,16,21]×σ (σ = 0.029 Jy beam−1 × km s−1 ) for Q0050+0051, [-2,2,4,5]×σ (σ = 0.029 Jy beam−1 × km s−1 ) for Q0052+0140, [-2,2,4,8,16,18]×σ (σ = 0.018 Jy beam−1 × km s−1 ) for Q0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [C I](1 − 0) intensity maps for the companion galaxies in our QSO fields. X and Y axis show the positions of the companion galaxies relative to the QSOs. Colorbars show line flux scale in the unit of Jy beam−1 × km s−1 . Contours denote the detections of [-2,2,4,5]×σ (1σ = 0.019 Jy beam−1 × km s−1 ) for the companion galaxy C1 in the Q0050+0051 field, [-2,2,3]×σ (1σ = 0.043 Jy beam−1 × km s−1 ) for C1 in the Q0052+0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [C I](1 − 0) spectra for QSOs. Left column: The CO(4−3) (solid blue lines) and [C I](1 − 0) (grey histograms) spectra normalized to the peak flux densities. Red solid lines represent Gaussian profile fit to the [C I](1 − 0) lines. Note that the [C I](1 − 0) and CO(4−3) are from the 12 m array data of ALMA. Right column: The [C I](1 − 0) spectra obtained using 12 m array data of ALMA (grey histograms) and 7 m +12 m a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison between the [C I](1 − 0) flux measured from the 12 m array data (Sνdν[C I]) and the 7 m + 12 m array data after uv-tapering (Sνdνtaper [C I] ). The red squares represent the measured [C I](1 − 0) fluxes, and the Sνdν[C I] = Sνdνtaper [C I] relation is show…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LCO(4−3)/LFIR(SF) and L[C I](1−0)/LFIR(SF) ratios for the QSOs and companion galaxies in our sample and samples of galaxies in the literature. Literature galaxy samples are local (U)LIRGs (cyan circles), z = 1.1 − 6.4 AGN or QSOs (magenta down-triangles), z = 2.0−4.8 s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LCO(4−3)/L[C I](1−0) vs L[C I](1−0)/LFIR(SF) ratios for the QSOs (red filled diamonds), and companion galaxies (blue filled squares), and the tentative detection of the CGM (black filled square) in our sample. The comparison samples in the literature are the same as th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Molecular gas masses derived based on the CO(4−3), [C I](1 − 0) and dust continuum emission. We use αCO = 0.8 M⊙[K km/s pc2 ] −1 , R41 = 0.87, and X[C I] = 8.4 × 10−5 to estimate the molecular gas mass using the CO(4−3) and [C I](1 − 0) lines for the QSOs. We consider …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison between the [C I](1 − 0) source sizes convolved with the beam and the beam sizes for the 12 m array data. The red squares represent the sizes of the major axis, and the blue diamonds represent the sizes of the minor axis. We show the source size equal to t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str 1, D-85748 Garching bei M\

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    S., et al.\ 2010, , 401, 2531

    Aird, J., Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., et al.\ 2010, , 401, 2531. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15829.x

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    F., et al.\ 2015, , 804, 26

    Arrigoni Battaia, F., Yang, Y., Hennawi, J. F., et al.\ 2015, , 804, 26. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/26 2015

  6. [6]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., et al.\ 2018, , 473, 3907. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2465

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2465 2018

  7. [7]

    B., et al.\ 2022, , 930, 72

    Arrigoni Battaia, F., Chen, C.-C., Liu, H.-Y. B., et al.\ 2022, , 930, 72. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4d 2022

  8. [8]

    L., Jones, G., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 4390

    Banerji, M., Carilli, C. L., Jones, G., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 4390. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3019

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3019 2017

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J.\ 1995, , 450, 559. doi:10.1086/176166

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220866

    Bianchi, S.\ 2013, , 552, A89. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220866

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Papadopoulos, P

    Bisbas, T. G., Papadopoulos, P. P., & Viti, S.\ 2015, , 803, 37. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/37

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    G., van Dishoeck, E

    Bisbas, T. G., van Dishoeck, E. F., Papadopoulos, P. P., et al.\ 2017, , 839, 90. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa696d

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039057

    Bischetti, M., Feruglio, C., Piconcelli, E., et al.\ 2021, , 645, A33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039057

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 645. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    2006

  7. [15]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

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

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Aguirre, J

    Bothwell, M. S., Aguirre, J. E., Aravena, M., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 2825. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3270

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    Cai, Z., Fan, X., Yang, Y., et al.\ 2017, , 837, 71. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aacce6

    Cai, Z., Hamden, E., Matuszewski, M., et al.\ 2018, , 861, L3. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aacce6

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    X., et al.\ 2019, , 245, 23

    Cai, Z., Cantalupo, S., Prochaska, J. X., et al.\ 2019, , 245, 23. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4796

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Carilli, C. L. & Walter, F.\ 2013, , 51, 105. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al.\ 2022, , 134, 114501. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56570-5\_9

    Chen, H.-W.\ 2017, Outskirts of Galaxies, 434, 291. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56570-5\_9

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    D., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 8950

    Chen, Z., Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 8950. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3128

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Gallerani, S., et al.\ 2015, , 574, A14. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    Cicone, C., Mainieri, V., Circosta, C., et al.\ 2021, , 654, L8. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al.\ 2006, , 365, 11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    2006

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L118

    Daddi, E., Elbaz, D., Walter, F., et al.\ 2010, , 714, L118. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L118

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141853

    De Breuck, C., Lundgren, A., Emonts, B., et al.\ 2022, , 658, L2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141853

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Emonts, B., et al.\ 2017, , 608, A48

    Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., Emonts, B., et al.\ 2017, , 608, A48. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730449

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab30fe

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., G \'o nzalez-L \'o pez, J., et al.\ 2019, , 882, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab30fe

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    de los Reyes, M. A. C. & Kennicutt, R. C.\ 2019, , 872, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa82

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834444

    De Vis, P., Jones, A., Viaene, S., et al.\ 2019, , 623, A5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834444

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d7

    D \' az-Santos, T., Armus, L., Charmandaris, V., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d7

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1038/nature03335

    Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L.\ 2005, , 433, 604. doi:10.1038/nature03335

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    & Solomon, P

    Downes, D. & Solomon, P. M.\ 1998, , 507, 615. doi:10.1086/306339

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323310

    Drouart, G., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J., et al.\ 2014, , 566, A53. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323310

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt997

    Dubois, Y., Gavazzi, R., Peirani, S., et al.\ 2013, , 433, 3297. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt997

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    Dubois, Y., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al.\ 2016, , 463, 3948. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2265

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Vlahakis, C., et al.\ 2021, , 501, 2573

    Dunne, L., Maddox, S. J., Vlahakis, C., et al.\ 2021, , 501, 2573. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3526

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Villar-Mart \' n, M., et al.\ 2016, Science, 354, 1128. doi:10.1126/science.aag0512

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Dannerbauer, H., et al.\ 2018, , 477, L60. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly034

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Yoon, I., et al.\ 2023, Science, 379, 1323. doi:10.1126/science.abh2150

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    D., et al.\ 2019, , 621, A27

    Falkendal, T., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., et al.\ 2019, , 621, A27. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732485

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab480f

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Ferrara, A., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 107. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab480f

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Bethermin, M., et al.\ 2020, , 900, 1

    Fujimoto, S., Silverman, J. D., Bethermin, M., et al.\ 2020, , 900, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b3

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Gracia-Carpio, J., et al.\ 2010, , 407, 2091

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

    2010

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx712

    Ginolfi, M., Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., et al.\ 2017, , 468, 3468. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx712

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    C., B \'e thermin, M., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A90

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B \'e thermin, M., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A90. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936872

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142172

    Gururajan, G., B \'e thermin, M., Theul \'e , P., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A22. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142172

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346449

    Gururajan, G., Bethermin, M., Sulzenauer, N., et al.\ 2023, , 676, A89. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346449

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    J.\ 1968, , 19, 421

    Habing, H. J.\ 1968, , 19, 421

    1968

  44. [52]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac0f6

    Herrera-Camus, R., Sturm, E., Graci \'a -Carpio, J., et al.\ 2018, , 861, 94. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac0f6

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039704

    Herrera-Camus, R., F \"o rster Schreiber, N., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2021, , 649, A31. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039704

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Carilli, C

    Hodge, J. A., Carilli, C. L., Walter, F., et al.\ 2012, , 760, 11. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/11

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Kere s , D., et al.\ 2008, , 175, 390. doi:10.1086/524363

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C

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

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    ichi ., Mitsuhashi, I., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2408.03374

    Ikeda, R., Tadaki, K.-. ichi ., Mitsuhashi, I., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2408.03374. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.03374

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    P., Rosenberg, M

    Israel, F. P., Rosenberg, M. J. F., & van der Werf, P.\ 2015, , 578, A95. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425175

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0f

    Jiao, Q., Zhao, Y., Zhu, M., et al.\ 2017, , 840, L18. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0f

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1035

    Jiao, Q., Gao, Y., & Zhao, Y.\ 2021, , 504, 2360. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1035

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ed

    Jiao, Q., Zhao, Y., Lu, N., et al.\ 2019, , 880, 133. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29ed

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 275

    Jones, G. C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 275. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad985

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Wolfire, M

    Kaufman, M. J., Wolfire, M. G., & Hollenbach, D. J.\ 2006, , 644, 283. doi:10.1086/503596

    2006 doi

  56. [64]

    C.\ 1998, , 498, 541

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

    1998 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Hao, C.-N., Calzetti, D., et al.\ 2009, , 703, 1672

    Kennicutt, R. C., Hao, C.-N., Calzetti, D., et al.\ 2009, , 703, 1672. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1672

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & De Los Reyes, M. A. C.\ 2021, , 908, 61. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a2

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2647

    Kolwa, S., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J., et al.\ 2023, , 525, 5831. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2647

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C.\ 2013, , 51, 511. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1017/S1743921319008500

    Kormendy, J.\ 2020, Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, 353, 186. doi:10.1017/S1743921319008500

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    A., & Sijacki, D.\ 2021, , 503, 3568

    Koudmani, S., Henden, N. A., & Sijacki, D.\ 2021, , 503, 3568. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab677

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038944

    Khusanova, Y., Bethermin, M., Le F \`e vre, O., et al.\ 2021, , 649, A152. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038944

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al.\ 2020, , 132, 035001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F.\ 2016, , 226, 25. doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/25

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    Le Brun, A. M. C., McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., et al.\ 2014, , 441, 1270. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu608

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2684

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

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    Li, J., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al.\ 2021, , 922, L29. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac390d

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    Li, J., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 180. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accbbd

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L14

    Liu, D., Gao, Y., Isaak, K., et al.\ 2015, , 810, L14. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L14

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a8

    Liu, Y., Wang, R., Momjian, E., et al.\ 2021, , 908, 124. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a8

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    & Dickinson, M.\ 2014, , 52, 415

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M.\ 2014, , 52, 415. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19950.x

    Martizzi, D., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B.\ 2012, , 420, 2859. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19950.x

    2012

  74. [82]

    J., Spinrad, H., van Breugel, W., et al.\ 1990, , 365, 487

    McCarthy, P. J., Spinrad, H., van Breugel, W., et al.\ 1990, , 365, 487. doi:10.1086/169503

    1990 doi

  75. [83]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., et al.\ 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

    2007

  76. [84]

    A., Walter, F., Cicone, C., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 152

    Meyer, R. A., Walter, F., Cicone, C., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 152. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e94

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    & De Breuck, C.\ 2008, , 15, 67

    Miley, G. & De Breuck, C.\ 2008, , 15, 67. doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    2008 doi

  78. [86]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345924

    Mountrichas, G.\ 2023, , 672, A98. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345924

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al.\ 2011, , 737, 67. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  80. [88]

    Neufeld, D. A. & Wolfire, M. G.\ 2016, , 826, 183. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/183

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    D., Davies, J

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., et al.\ 2020, , 491, 2939. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3124

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    P., Thi, W.-F., & Viti, S.\ 2004, , 351, 147

    Papadopoulos, P. P., Thi, W.-F., & Viti, S.\ 2004, , 351, 147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07762.x

    2004

  83. [91]

    Papadopoulos, P. P. & Greve, T. R.\ 2004, , 615, L29. doi:10.1086/426059

    2004 doi

  84. [92]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al.\ 2020, , 641, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    Pound, M. W. & Wolfire, M. G.\ 2008, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVII, 394, 654

    2008

  86. [94]

    F., Schaye, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2403.12140

    Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2403.12140. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.12140

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    Pound, M. W. & Wolfire, M. G.\ 2023, , 165, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b1f

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    doi:10.1086/375619

    Reuland, M., van Breugel, W., R \"o ttgering, H., et al.\ 2003, , 592, 755. doi:10.1086/375619

    2003 doi

  89. [97]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al.\ 2006, , 131, 2766. doi:10.1086/503559

    2006 doi

  90. [98]

    Rosenberg, M. J. F., van der Werf, P. P., Aalto, S., et al.\ 2015, , 801, 72. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/72

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al.\ 2015, , 446, 521. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  92. [100]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346945

    Schimek, A., Decataldo, D., Shen, S., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A98. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346945

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    P., & Gunn, J

    Schmidt, M., Schneider, D. P., & Gunn, J. E.\ 1995, , 110, 68. doi:10.1086/117497

    1995 doi

  94. [102]

    C., et al.\ 2023, , 519, 5246

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., Jones, G. C., et al.\ 2023, , 519, 5246. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3787

    2023 doi

  95. [103]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244610

    Shao, Y., Wang, R., Weiss, A., et al.\ 2022, , 668, A121. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244610

    2022 doi

  96. [104]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    Sijacki, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al.\ 2015, , 452, 575. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    & Rees, M

    Silk, J. & Rees, M. J.\ 1998, , 331, L1. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al.\ 2006, , 131, 1163. doi:10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  99. [107]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K.\ 2017, , 55, 389. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    E., Daddi, E., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 24

    Valentino, F., Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 24. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6603

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 130

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Neeleman, M., et al.\ 2020, , 904, 130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc563

    2020 doi

  102. [110]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07090.x

    Villar-Mart \' n, M., Vernet, J., di Serego Alighieri, S., et al.\ 2003, , 346, 273. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07090.x

    2003

  103. [111]

    D., Ross, N

    White, M., Myers, A. D., Ross, N. P., et al.\ 2012, , 424, 933. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21251.x

    2012

  104. [112]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/18

    Walter, F., Wei , A., Downes, D., et al.\ 2011, , 730, 18. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/18

    2011 doi

  105. [113]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac49e8

    Walter, F., Neeleman, M., Decarli, R., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 21. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac49e8

    2022 doi

  106. [114]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3fb4

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al.\ 2024, , 968, 9. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3fb4

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031337

    Wei , A., Henkel, C., Downes, D., et al.\ 2003, , 409, L41. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031337

    2003 doi

  108. [116]

    G., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C

    Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F.\ 2010, , 716, 1191. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1191

    2010 doi

  109. [117]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731391

    Yang, C., Omont, A., Beelen, A., et al.\ 2017, , 608, A144. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731391

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.