Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quenching Through Tidal Gas Removal: Molecular Gas and Star Formation in Tidal Tails of z ~ 0.7 Post-Starburst Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two massive post-starburst galaxies at $z\sim0.7$ lost roughly half of their star-forming molecular gas into tidal tails during mergers, making tidal stripping the likely dominant quenching mechanism.

desk verdict Solid data, fragile headline: the 'dominant tidal gas removal' claim is sensitive to alpha_CO, but the paper is honest about it and deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21249 v1 pith:W66HOPDB submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.GA

Vincenzo R. D'Onofrio , Justin S. Spilker , Rachel Bezanson , Robert Feldmann , Andy D. Goulding , Jenny E. Greene , Mariska Kriek , Yuanze Luo
show 5 more authors
Desika Narayanan David J. Setton Katherine A. Suess Yunchong Zhang Pengpei Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords post-starburstgalaxiestidaltailsmoleculargasgalaxyquenchingmajormergersCO(2-1)emissionstarformationsuppressionAGNfeedback
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 argues that a major merger can quench a galaxy by ripping roughly half of its cold molecular gas into long tidal tails, and that this tidal removal, not AGN feedback, is the likely dominant quenching mechanism in the two systems studied. The targets are massive post-starburst galaxies, meaning galaxies whose A-star spectra show an intense burst of star formation that ended abruptly 0.1–1 Gyr ago, observed when the universe was about half its current age. CO(2–1) imaging shows that 47% and 55% of the molecular gas in SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313 respectively lies in extended tidal features spanning tens of kiloparsecs, far beyond what is seen in nearby mergers. The galaxies retain considerable central gas, but it is highly turbulent and inefficient at forming stars, so the paper attributes the ongoing suppression to turbulence and, for one galaxy, radio jets from a central black hole that act as a maintenance mechanism. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a merger-driven, observationally direct route to the rapid shutdown of star formation that builds present-day elliptical galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the spatially resolved CO(2–1) moment map of each galaxy, with the fraction of total CO luminosity in the tidal tails converted to molecular gas mass via a single assumed CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor ($\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.0$). A companion sample of 18 low-redshift mergers with molecular gas in their tidal tails sets the comparison: these $z\sim0.7$ systems have both larger tail gas fractions and larger projected tail extents than any local case. For the central suppression, the paper uses the empirical size–velocity dispersion plane of molecular gas clumps to show that the central galaxies lie above the virialized relation, implying the gas is stabilized against collapse. Radio 6 GHz continuum and the predicted decay of star-formation-linked synchrotron emission test whether each galaxy's radio emission is AGN or residual star formation, separating initiating from maintenance mechanisms.

What would settle it

Measure the dust continuum or CO(1–0) in the tidal tails of SDSS J2258+2313 to derive an independent molecular gas mass. If the tails' CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor is near the ULIRG value of 1, the stripped fraction falls to about one quarter and the dominance claim weakens; if it is near 4, the stripped fraction stands. A second check is high-resolution CO kinematics: gas on closed or bound orbits, or a stellar disk that rotates coherently through the tail region, would contradict the tidal-stripping interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that tidal gas removal during a major merger is the likely proximate cause of quenching in these two systems. CO(2–1) observations resolve the molecular gas into a central component plus northern and southern tidal features: SDSS J1448+1010 carries $47\%\pm5\%$ of its CO luminosity in tails reaching $\sim65$ kpc, and SDSS J2258+2313 carries $55\%\pm5\%$ in tails reaching $\sim40$ kpc. The gas masses are derived under a single Milky Way-like CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.0$, and the paper notes that a ULIRG-like factor of 1 in the tails would reduce the tail fractions to roughly 20–25%. Grism maps show $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ emission in SDSS J1448+1010's northern tail, indicating ongoing star formation there, while SDSS J2258+2313 has no detectable $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ outside the center. Six-gigahertz radio continuum reveals double-peaked jets in SDSS J1448+1010, which is AGN-dominated, and compact emission in SDSS J2258+2313 consistent with residual star formation. Both central galaxies show velocity dispersions above $\sim200$ km/s and gas depletion times near 10 Gyr, which the paper interprets as a turbulent, collapse-resistant interstellar medium whose quiescence is maintained by radio-mode feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on treating the extended CO features as tidal tails and on assuming one Milky Way-like CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor for both the turbulent centers and the faint tails; the paper itself notes the merger case for SDSS J2258+2313 is 'clearly less strong', and a ULIRG-like factor in the tails would lower the tail gas fraction to roughly 20–25 percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tidal stripping of cold gas can be the primary quenching mechanism in massive merging post-starbursts, not merely a side effect of a starburst or an AGN.
  • Because two of six CO-detected galaxies from the survey show such tails, the mechanism may be a common path to quenching at intermediate redshifts, and gas-rich, merger-heavy conditions at higher redshift should make it more prevalent.
  • The central galaxies' retained gas is not a contradiction of quenching: turbulence raises their depletion times to roughly 10 Gyr, so a galaxy can be observationally quenched while still holding a large molecular reservoir.
  • Tidally removed gas can keep forming stars, as in SDSS J1448+1010's northern tail, so some of the stripped gas may later build extended stellar halos or tidal dwarf galaxies; the non-detection in SDSS J2258+2313 shows the outcome is sensitive to tail conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the CO-based tail fractions survive independent dust-based mass checks, galaxy formation models may need to weight merger-driven tidal stripping as a quenching channel comparable to AGN feedback at $z\sim0.5$–1, where both gas fractions and merger rates peak.
  • The paper's own $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ caveat suggests a direct test: measuring dust continuum or CO(1–0) in the tails would determine whether the true stripped fraction is half or a quarter, and the two cases bracket the strength of the quenching claim.
  • A systematic census of post-starburst morphologies could turn this pair of case studies into a statistical measurement of how often mergers quench by gas removal rather than by exhausting or heating gas in place.
  • If the star-forming clump in SDSS J1448+1010's tail is a genuine tidal dwarf candidate, deep imaging of similar systems could catch tidal dwarf formation shortly after quenching, a direct link between mergers and dwarf satellites.
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. This paper presents a multiwavelength study (ALMA CO(2-1), HST WFC3 F110W imaging and G102 grism spectroscopy, and VLA 6 GHz continuum) of two massive z~0.7 post-starburst galaxies from the SQuIGGLE survey, SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313. The authors report that 47% and 55% of the CO luminosity in each system resides in extended tidal tails, with projected extents up to 65 kpc. They argue that tidal gas removal during a major merger is the likely dominant quenching mechanism, while the central galaxies retain substantial molecular gas reservoirs that are turbulent and inefficient at forming stars. The paper also finds Hα emission in one tail of J1448+1010, no tail Hα in J2258+2313, and radio emission consistent with AGN in J1448+1010 but plausibly due to star formation in J2258+2313.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper provides rare, spatially resolved evidence for tidal gas removal as a quenching channel at intermediate redshift, with two examples that also exhibit diversity in tail star formation and AGN properties. The strengths of the work are the standard, well-documented calibration of ALMA, HST, and VLA data; the transparent discussion of systematic uncertainties, particularly in Section 3.4 where the alpha_CO dependence is explicitly quantified; and the use of multiple independent tracers (CO, dust, Hα, radio) to characterize the gas and star formation. The public data products and clear comparison with local merger samples are also valuable. The central scientific claim, however, rests on assumptions that the paper itself shows are not uniquely determined by the data, so the significance is proportionate to the interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1] The paper's headline claim that tidal gas removal is the dominant quenching mechanism depends on the inference that roughly half of each system's molecular gas is in the tidal tails. Section 3.4 explicitly shows that adopting a ULIRG-like alpha_CO = 1 for the tails reduces the tail gas fractions to about 20% and 25%, respectively. This would move the two systems much closer to the low-redshift merger comparison sample in Figure 7, undermining the statement in Section 4.2 that the magnitude and extent 'significantly exceed' those in nearby mergers. The dust-based cross-check provides only 3-sigma upper limits for the tails, which are consistent with both alpha_CO = 4 and alpha_CO = 1, so it does not independently validate the tail masses. Since the abstract and conclusions state the ~50% removal as a fact, the authors should either provide quantitative justification for applying a Milky Way-like alpha_CO in the tails (e.g., from CO excitation ratios, line widths, or dynamical equilibrium arguments) or reframe the claim as conditional on alpha_CO, with the reduced fraction explicitly acknowledged in the abstract and Section 6.
  2. [Section 4.1] For SDSS J2258+2313 the merger interpretation is admitted to be 'clearly less strong' than for J1448+1010. The evidence consists of asymmetric arms, a residual light clump at the base of the northern tail, and a 'possible tidal dwarf galaxy' at the tip of the southern tail, but no companion redshifts are confirmed from the HST grism data or SDSS photometry/spectroscopy. Without kinematic evidence that the extended features are tidal debris from a major merger, alternative explanations such as a fly-by, minor merger, or asymmetric gas accretion remain viable. Because the paper's strongest conclusion attributes tidal gas removal in both systems to a major merger, this identification is load-bearing. Please either provide additional evidence supporting the merger nature for J2258+2313 or explicitly separate the 'tidal removal' interpretation from the 'major merger' interpretation in the conclusions, and soften the claim accordingly if the latter cannot be secured.
  3. [Figure 7 and Section 4.2] The comparison between the two PSBs and the 18 low-redshift mergers in Figure 7 does not state whether the published CO masses and tail fractions for the comparison sample were derived with a consistent alpha_CO and r21 as used here. If the comparison sample uses different conversion factors (e.g., some low-z mergers apply ULIRG-like alpha_CO), the apparent extremity of the two z~0.7 systems could be an artifact of differing assumptions. Please specify the alpha_CO values adopted for the comparison sample in S22 and, if they differ, re-derive the comparison under a uniform assumption. This is directly relevant to the quantitative claim that the two PSBs are extreme in both tail gas fraction and spatial extent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typographical artifact 'F ormation' that should be corrected to 'Formation'.
  2. [Section 2.3] The exposure description '4×500 s dither pattern and a final dither position with an exposure time of 450 s' is ambiguous; please state the total integration time of 2.5 ks clearly in a single sentence.
  3. [Table 2] The definitions of R_CO and sigma_CO are not given in the table caption or text; please specify that R_CO is the deconvolved radius (or FWHM) and sigma_CO is the velocity dispersion from the single-Gaussian fit, and clarify how the quoted limits are computed.
  4. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'We use 2 mm dust continuum measurements' refers to the observed-frame wavelength; please state the rest-frame wavelength or frequency for clarity, given the two sidebands are at 137 and 149 GHz.
  5. [Appendix B] The CO(4-3)/CO(2-1) flux ratio for the northern tail is r42 = 0.32 +/- 0.13, which is below 1 and unusual if the tail gas is thermalized; please comment on whether excitation effects or calibration explain this value, or at least acknowledge that it complicates the assumption r21 = 1.0 in the tails.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's measurements and assumptions are independent of its conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational and self-contained against external benchmarks. The ~50% tail gas fraction is measured directly from ALMA CO(2-1) luminosity, and the adopted alpha_CO = 4.0 is a fixed literature value (Bolatto et al. 2013), not a parameter fitted to the target galaxies; the paper explicitly tests the sensitivity to alpha_CO in Section 3.4 and reports that a ULIRG-like value reduces the tail fractions to ~20-25%, which weakens rather than forces the conclusion. The dust-based cross-check for the central galaxy of SDSS J2258+2313 uses an independent 2 mm continuum detection and yields alpha_CO ~3.9, and the tail dust limits are reported as 3-sigma upper limits consistent with both alpha_CO choices, so the gas-mass estimates are not constructed to match the quenching narrative. The radio decay model of Eq. 1 uses fiducial timescales of 50-150 Myr rather than fitting the observed flux, and the comparison in Figure 6 is a genuine test. The merger interpretation for SDSS J2258+2313 is explicitly caveated as 'clearly less strong' (Section 4.1) and rests on imaging residuals and a possible tidal dwarf, not on a circular argument. Citations to S22 and other SQuIGGLE papers supply reproducible observational data and comparison samples; no uniqueness theorem or analytic result is imported from self-citations to forbid alternatives. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a handful of assumptions, chiefly the CO-to-H2 conversion factor and the tidal interpretation of the extended CO features. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor alpha_CO = 4.0 M_sun/(K km/s pc^2)
    Assumed Milky Way-like value from Bolatto et al. 2013 for all regions. The paper shows tail fractions would drop to 20-25% if alpha_CO = 1 in the tails.
  • CO excitation ratio r21 = 1.0
    Assumes thermalized CO(2-1) emission, required to convert CO luminosity to molecular gas mass.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Milky Way CO-to-H2 conversion factor applies equally to the central galaxy and tidal tails.
    Adopted in Sections 3.1 and 3.4. If the tails have a lower conversion factor, the inferred mass in the tails decreases significantly.
  • domain assumption The extended CO features are tidal tails produced by a recent major merger.
    This is the interpretive basis for the central claim, discussed in Section 4.1. The evidence for J2258+2313 is acknowledged to be weaker than for J1448+1010.
  • domain assumption Dust-based mass estimate assumes a mass-weighted dust temperature of 25 K.
    Used in Section 3.4 to cross-check the CO-derived gas mass for the central galaxy of J2258+2313.
  • domain assumption Radio synchrotron emission decays exponentially with timescales of 50, 100, or 150 Myr after quenching.
    Used in Section 3.5 and Figure 6 to test whether observed radio flux can be explained by residual star formation rather than AGN activity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quenching Through Tidal Gas Removal: Molecular Gas and Star Formation in Tidal Tails of z ~ 0.7 Post-Starburst Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W66HOPDB

@misc{pith2026250721249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quenching Through Tidal Gas Removal: Molecular Gas and Star Formation in Tidal Tails of z ~ 0.7 Post-Starburst Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W66HOPDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21249}
}
read the original abstract

The active suppression of star formation in galaxies is critical in preventing the growth of overly massive systems and explaining the formation of present-day elliptical galaxies. We present a high-resolution, spatially-resolved multiwavelength study of two z ~ 0.7 massive post-starburst galaxies, SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313, from the SQuIGGLE survey (Studying Quenching in Intermediate-z Galaxies: Gas, anguLar momentum, and Evolution), providing new insights into the role of mergers in driving quenching. ALMA CO(2-1) observations show that both galaxies removed ~50% of their molecular gas into extended tidal tails, spanning up to 65 kpc, following recent mergers. HST WFC3 imaging and grism spectroscopy show that while SDSS J1448+1010 exhibits Halpha emission in its northern tidal tail consistent with ongoing star formation, SDSS J2258+2313 lacks detectable star-forming activity outside the central galaxy. VLA 6 GHz continuum data reveal compact radio emission in SDSS J2258+2313, while SDSS J1448+1010 hosts small radio jets indicative of AGN activity. Both galaxies retain substantial molecular gas reservoirs in their central regions that appear more turbulent than 'normal' star-forming galaxies, likely contributing to the observed low star formation rates in the hosts. Despite similarities in their cold gas content and tidal features the galaxies are distinct from each other in their star formation, gas-star alignment, and radio morphology, highlighting the complexity of tidal gas removal as a quenching mechanism at intermediate redshifts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of time since quenching against redshift (left), stellar mass (middle), and the fraction of the mass formed in the recent burst (right). In each panel, the full SQuIGGL⃗E sample (Suess et al. 2022b) is indicated by the gray circles with the SQuIGGL⃗E ALMA CO(2–1) subsample (Bezanson et al. 2022; Setton et al. in prep.) shown in green circles. The targets presented in this work SDSS J1448+1010 and SD… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Moment maps and spectra of ALMA CO(2–1) emission for SDSS J1448+1010, reproduced from S22. Top row: Integrated CO(2–1) emission (left), mean velocity (center), and velocity dispersion (right). Contours begin at 3σ and increase in powers of two, with the central galaxy region highlighted by the dashed ellipse. CO emission extends up to ∼65 kpc, with blueshifted northern and redshifted southern tidal features offset b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Moment maps and spectra of ALMA CO(2–1) emission, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HST WFC3/G102 grism spectra for SDSS J1448+1010 (top) and SDSS J2258+2313 (bottom). For each galaxy, the position angle-combined 2D grism spec￾trum is displayed above the 1D grism spectrum (green data points with error bars). The positions of [OIII], Hα+[NII], and the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multiwavelength observations of the two PSBs, SDSS J1448+1010 (top row) and SDSS J2258+2313 (bottom row). The left column presents ALMA CO(2–1) contours (as in Figures 2 and 3) highlighting the distribution of cold molecular gas. The ALMA synthesized beam is shown in t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted versus observed VLA radio flux densi￾ties for SDSS J1448+1010 (top) and SDSS J2258+2313 (bot￾tom). The solid gray line shows each galaxy’s reconstructed SFH, derived from SED fitting of the SDSS spectrum and photometery (Suess et al. 2022b), with the observed…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Molecular gas properties of tidal tails in SDSS J1448+1010 (green) and SDSS J2258+2313 (red) compared to a sample of low-redshift mergers. The fraction of H2 located in the tidal tails is plotted against the total gas mass in the tails (left panel) and the maximum proj…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SFR vs H2 gas mass for the two post-starburst galaxies SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313. The cen￾tral galaxies of SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313 are shown as green and red circles (using their SED-derived SFRs), respectively, with their corresponding tidal tail…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Turbulence properties of the molecular gas in SDSS J1448+1010 and SDSS J2258+2313. The left panel shows the relationship between size and velocity dispersion, while the right panel presents the dispersion normalized by size against the gas surface density. Markers for …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The left panel shows the 1.4 GHz radio luminosity plotted against the total stellar mass. Shown alongside are comparison samples including radio AGN in SQuIGGL⃗E galaxies detected in FIRST (green squares; Greene et al. 2020), VLA￾COSMOS z ∼ 1 AGN (black circles; Smolˇ…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: HST WFC3/F110W imaging and S´ersic model fitting results for SDSS J2258+2313, with the original HST image (left), best-fit single S´ersic model (middle), and residual image (right). The asymmetries in the tidal features and the minor peak of light located ∼0.5′′ south…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ALMA CO(4–3) and CO(2–1) spectra for the central region (left), northern tail (middle), and southern tail (right) of SDSS J1448+1010. The CO(4–3) emission is detected in the central galaxy and northern tail with greater intensity compared to CO(2–1), but is not detect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SQuIGG$\vec{L}$E: Buried star formation cannot explain the rapidly fading CO(2-1) luminosity in massive, $z\sim0.7$ post-starburst galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Buried star formation cannot explain the rapid CO fading in z~0.7 post-starburst galaxies, so gas-rich recently quenched galaxies may rejuvenate instead of directly becoming quiescent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    J a & T*H L/4 gU T100fs

    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...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  5. [5]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L17

    Alatalo, K. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l17 2015

  6. [6]

    C., Ciesla, L., Ilbert, O., et al

    Arango-Toro, R. C., Ciesla, L., Ilbert, O., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 675, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345848

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345848 2023

  7. [7]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    B., & Ellis, R

    Belli, S., Newman, A. B., & Ellis, R. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07af 2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    S., Suess, K

    Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 207, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2000, Nature, 403, 867, 10.1038/35002521

    Braine, J., Lisenfeld, U., Due, P.-A., & Leon, S. 2000, Nature, 403, 867, 10.1038/35002521

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1905.001

    Brammer, G. 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1905.001. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ascl.soft05001B

    2019

  5. [13]

    R., Carlberg, R

    Bridge, C. R., Carlberg, R. G., & Sullivan, M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 1067, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1067

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, PhD thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhDT.......238B

    1995

  7. [15]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 30, 575, 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    1992

  9. [17]

    1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 166, 10.1086/133871

    ---. 1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 166, 10.1086/133871

    1997 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Yang, C., & Bluck, A

    Conselice, C. J., Yang, C., & Bluck, A. F. L. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 1956, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14396.x

    2009

  11. [19]

    J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S

    Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 647, 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2005290

    2008

  12. [21]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 113, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 113, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    2006

  14. [23]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1115, 10.1038/s41550-019-0874-0

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., Combes, F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1115, 10.1038/s41550-019-0874-0

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    2005, Nature, 433, 604, 10.1038/nature03335

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

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    2012, Wide Field Camera 3 Instrument Handbook for Cycle 21 v

    Dressel, L. 2012, Wide Field Camera 3 Instrument Handbook for Cycle 21 v. 5.0. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012wfci.book....5D

    2012

  17. [26]

    A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., et al

    Duc, P. A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1238, 10.1086/301516

    2000 doi

  18. [27]

    A., & Mirabel, I

    Duc, P. A., & Mirabel, I. F. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 333, 813. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...333..813D

    1998

  19. [28]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 120, 10.1093/mnras/stu2019

    Duc, P.-A., Cuillandre, J.-C., Karabal, E., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 120, 10.1093/mnras/stu2019

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    J., Mundy, C., et al

    Duncan, K., Conselice, C. J., Mundy, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab148a

    2019 doi

  21. [31]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1939, 10.1093/mnras/stu2207

    Feldmann, R., & Mayer, L. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1939, 10.1093/mnras/stu2207

    2015 doi

  22. [32]

    F., Faucher-Gigu\` e re, C.-A., & Kere s , D

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu\` e re, C.-A., & Kere s , D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1050, 10.1093/mnras/stx1120

    2017 doi

  23. [33]

    J., Duncan, K., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Duncan, K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9b

    2020 doi

  24. [34]

    J., Bennett, C

    Fixsen, D. J., Bennett, C. L., & Mather, J. C. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 526, 207, 10.1086/307962

    1999 doi

  25. [35]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 4586, 10.1093/mnras/sty3449

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 4586, 10.1093/mnras/sty3449

    2019 doi

  26. [36]

    French, K. D. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 133, 072001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59

    2021 doi

  27. [38]

    E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D., Bezanson, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba534

    2020 doi

  28. [39]

    C., Weiss, A., Yun, M

    Harrington, K. C., Weiss, A., Yun, M. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc01

    2021 doi

  29. [40]

    E., Vacca, W

    Hibbard, J. E., Vacca, W. D., & Yun, M. S. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 1130, 10.1086/301263

    2000 doi

  30. [41]

    E., & Yun, M

    Hibbard, J. E., & Yun, M. S. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 118, 162, 10.1086/300928

    1999 doi

  31. [42]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 163, 1, 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  32. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  33. [44]

    J\' a chym, P., Combes, F., Cortese, L., Sun, M., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 11, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/11

    2014 doi

  34. [45]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 54, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x

    2003

  35. [46]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  36. [48]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 19, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    2013 doi

  37. [49]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/stz2134

    Liang, L., Feldmann, R., Kereš, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/stz2134

    2019 doi

  38. [50]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 672, 177, 10.1086/523659

    2008 doi

  39. [51]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, 376, 127. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASPC..376..127M

    2007

  40. [52]

    Murphy, E. J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 482, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/482

    2009 doi

  41. [53]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 67, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  42. [54]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 742, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/742

    Muzzin, A., van Dokkum, P., Kriek, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 742, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/742

    2010 doi

  43. [55]

    Nguyen-Luong, Q., Nguyen, H. V. V., Motte, F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 23, 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/23

    2016 doi

  44. [56]

    Pasha, I., & Miller, T. B. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5703, 10.21105/joss.05703

    2023 doi

  45. [57]

    M., Taj Aldeen, L., Wild, V., et al

    Pawlik, M. M., Taj Aldeen, L., Wild, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 1708, 10.1093/mnras/sty589

    2018 doi

  46. [58]

    C., Narayanan, D., & Davé, R

    Privon, G. C., Narayanan, D., & Davé, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae485

    2018 doi

  47. [59]

    K., et al

    Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 1218, 10.1093/mnras/stab085

    2021 doi

  48. [60]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 61, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18823.x

    Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Wang, J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 61, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18823.x

    2011

  49. [61]

    M., Alatalo, K., Federrath, C., Groves, B., & Kewley, L

    Salim, D. M., Alatalo, K., Federrath, C., Groves, B., & Kewley, L. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77ae

    2020 doi

  50. [62]

    Schinnerer, E., & Leroy, A. K. 2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 62, 369, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651

    2024 doi

  51. [63]

    D., Villanueva, E

    Schweizer, F., Seitzer, P., Kelson, D. D., Villanueva, E. V., & Walth, G. L. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/148

    2013 doi

  52. [64]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    2016 doi

  53. [65]

    J., Bezanson, R., Suess, K

    Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., Suess, K. A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc265

    2020 doi

  54. [67]

    T., French, K

    Smercina, A., Smith, J.-D. T., French, K. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f

    2022 doi

  55. [68]

    J., Struck, C., & Pogge, R

    Smith, B. J., Struck, C., & Pogge, R. W. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 483, 754, 10.1086/304286

    1997 doi

  56. [69]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 24, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/24

    Smol c i\' c , V., Zamorani, G., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 24, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/24

    2009 doi

  57. [70]

    N., Smail, I., et al

    Sobral, D., Best, P. N., Smail, I., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 675, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17707.x

    2011

  58. [71]

    S., Marrone, D

    Spilker, J. S., Marrone, D. P., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 149, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/149

    2014 doi

  59. [72]

    S., Phadke, K

    Spilker, J. S., Phadke, K. A., Aravena, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc47f

    2020 doi

  60. [73]

    S., Suess, K

    Spilker, J. S., Suess, K. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75ea

    2022 doi

  61. [74]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  62. [75]

    A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J

    Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dc

    2017 doi

  63. [76]

    A., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Suess, K. A., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b0

    2022 doi

  64. [77]

    A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac404a

    2022 doi

  65. [78]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    2020 doi

  66. [79]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  67. [80]

    G., Nelan, J., & Bezanson, R

    Tal, T., van Dokkum, P. G., Nelan, J., & Bezanson, R. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1417, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1417

    2009 doi

  68. [81]

    E., Setton, D

    Verrico, M. E., Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc38b

    2023 doi

  69. [82]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 361, 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    Wellons, S., Torrey, P., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 361, 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    2015 doi

  70. [83]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 832, 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    Wild, V., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 832, 10.1093/mnras/stw1996

    2016 doi

  71. [84]

    M., Faber, S

    Yesuf, H. M., Faber, S. M., Trump, J. R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84

    2014 doi

  72. [85]

    I., Zaritsky, D., Lin, H., et al

    Zabludoff, A. I., Zaritsky, D., Lin, H., et al. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 466, 104, 10.1086/177495

    1996 doi

  73. [86]

    A., Kriek , M., et al

    Zhu , P., Suess , K. A., Kriek , M., et al. 2025, , 981, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf1c

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.