Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Large-Scale Stellar Age-Velocity Spiral Pattern in NGC 4030

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A grand-design spiral pattern in the stellar velocity dispersion of NGC 4030 shows stars forming in spiral arms are born colder and heat up as they age.

desk verdict A plausible but unproven detection; the sigma spiral needs a null test before it can be called secure, but the age–sigma–star formation correlation is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16372 v1 pith:WW3P3B3C submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.GA

Iris Breda , Glenn van de Ven , Sabine Thater , J. Falcón-Barroso , Prashin Jethwa , Dimitri A. Gadotti , Masato Onodera , Ismael Pessa
show 6 more authors
Joop Schaye Gerhard Hensler Jarle Brinchmann Anja F.-Krause Davor Krajnović Bodo Ziegler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:spiralevolutionkinematicsanddynamicsage-velocityrelationintegralfieldspectroscopydiskheatingvelocitydispersionNGC4030
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

This letter reports a grand-design spiral pattern in the stellar velocity dispersion map of the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 4030, seen after subtracting a smooth model of the galaxy's main body. Stars inside the spiral arms are colder (lower $\sigma_\star$ by 2–8 km/s), younger, and coincident with HII regions, so the pattern traces active star formation. The paper interprets this as evidence that stars inherit the velocity dispersion of the cold molecular gas they form from, so the age–velocity relation records both the turbulence of the gas at birth and later gravitational heating. A sympathetic reader would care because the same residual-map technique could expose disk-heating physics in other galaxies, and the data provide a sharp target for cosmological simulations.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on harmonic-expansion modeling and subtraction: a two-dimensional map of each observable (velocity dispersion, age, H$\alpha$) is fitted along best-fitting ellipses with a smooth multi-harmonic model, and the residual map retains only non-axisymmetric structure. Full spectral fitting of the integral-field data cube, with nebular-continuum subtraction and Voronoi binning, supplies the stellar kinematics and luminosity-weighted ages; selection of progressively higher EW(H$\alpha$) spaxels provides an independent check that the arm/inter-arm contrasts are not artifacts of the manually drawn arm regions. The harmonic-expansion residual is the load-bearing object because it is what reveals the spiral pattern in $\sigma_\star$ in the first place.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to run the same harmonic-expansion subtraction on a velocity dispersion map of a galaxy with no spiral structure, or on a synthetic smooth galaxy with comparable noise; if a similar spiral residual appears, the pattern is an artifact. Alternatively, mapping the cold molecular gas velocity dispersion in NGC 4030 at comparable resolution should reveal a matching spiral of low-dispersion gas if the inheritance picture is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that NGC 4030 shows a large-scale, grand-design spiral pattern in the residual stellar velocity dispersion map, with $\Delta\sigma_\star$ systematically 2–8 km/s lower inside the arms than in the surrounding disk, matching regions of younger luminosity-weighted ages (0.25–1.25 Gyr younger) and enhanced H$\alpha$ emission. This spatial coincidence is read as star formation from cold gas: newly born stars keep the low velocity dispersion of their progenitor gas, while older populations have been heated by cumulative gravitational interactions. The galaxy's age–velocity relation is S-shaped rather than a smooth power law, with a wide spread of $\sigma_\star$ at 7–8 Gyr ages that the authors attribute to a rapid formation phase across the sampled region. The paper argues that the observed AVR is consistent with high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations where birth dispersion and post-birth heating each contribute roughly half of the present-day dispersion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth harmonic-expansion model subtracted from the velocity dispersion map does not itself create the spiral pattern; if the residual 2–8 km/s signal is an artifact of the subtraction, the claimed correlation between low dispersion, young age, and star formation collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is right, spiral arms in this galaxy are sites where stars are currently being born from cold gas, and their present-day velocity dispersion measures the gas dispersion at birth rather than just accumulated heating.
  • The S-shaped age–velocity relation implies that disk heating models must include both a birth-dispersion term set by ISM turbulence and a post-birth heating term, rather than a single power law.
  • Residual velocity-dispersion maps can serve as a tracer of recent star formation and spiral structure even when photometric tracers are faint.
  • The measured 2–8 km/s contrast sets a quantitative benchmark that cosmological zoom-in simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies should reproduce.
  • EW(H$\alpha$)-selected profiles confirm the arm/inter-arm trends, so the result is not tied to the particular arm boundaries chosen.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same harmonic-expansion subtraction to other integral-field galaxy samples could reveal whether such sigma spirals are common or rare; the paper only demonstrates one clear case.
  • Luminosity-weighted ages dilute old stellar components, so the true age–sigma separation between arms and inter-arm regions may be larger than the 0.25–1.25 Gyr reported; mass-weighted stellar ages would test this.
  • If the inheritance picture is right, high-resolution CO observations of NGC 4030 should show a matching spiral pattern in the molecular gas velocity dispersion, a directly testable prediction.
  • The S-shape at 7–8 Gyr may encode a genuine formation epoch; comparing the location of that knee with simulated merger timescales could date the disk's assembly.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyses MUSE IFU data of the grand-design spiral galaxy NGC 4030, deriving stellar velocity dispersion and luminosity-weighted age maps with multiple fitting methods (PPXF and BAYES-LOSVD; IUS and MILES templates). After subtracting a smooth KINEMETRY harmonic model from the observed maps, the authors report a grand-design spiral pattern in the stellar velocity-dispersion residual map, with 2-8 km/s lower sigma inside the spiral arms, where H-alpha and EW(H-alpha) are enhanced and stellar ages are 0.25-1.25 Gyr younger than in inter-arm regions. They interpret this as evidence that stars inherit the low velocity dispersion of the progenitor cold molecular gas and are subsequently heated by gravitational interactions, comparing the resulting age-velocity relation with cosmological zoom-in simulations (Bird et al. 2021; Martig et al. 2014).

Significance. If the detection is robust, it is an important new observable: a large-scale correlation between stellar kinematics, stellar age, and ongoing star formation in an external disk galaxy, with direct bearing on the age-velocity relation and disk-heating mechanisms. The paper's strength is the extensive cross-validation of the kinematic maps: different template libraries, fitting codes, numbers of Gauss-Hermite moments, and with/without nebular-continuum subtraction all reproduce the pattern (Fig. A.1). The EW(H-alpha)-selected radial profiles (Fig. 3b,c) provide an independent check on the sigma-age correlation that does not rely on the manually defined spiral-arm masks. The comparison with simulations is suggestive, though the use of luminosity-weighted ages and a constant sigma offset in the g106 comparison weakens quantitative conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 / Fig. A.5] The KINEMETRY harmonic subtraction is the step that defines the residual maps used to measure the spiral pattern and its amplitude. The manuscript does not report the harmonic order, the radial range, or the allowed variation of the ellipse parameters, and it does not provide a null test of the subtraction. Because the residual amplitude (2-8 km/s) is only slightly larger than the median per-spaxel uncertainty (1.7 km/s), a smooth-model misfit of a few km/s could in principle generate a coherent spiral-like residual in a non-elliptical sigma map. The consistency checks in Fig. A.1 validate the input sigma maps, not the subtraction step. Please specify the KINEMETRY settings and demonstrate that the residual spiral is robust to the subtraction method, e.g., by comparing with an alternative smooth baseline (azimuthal median, spline, or unsharp mask) or by injecting a known spiral pattern into a smooth map.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 1c] The paper quotes a median sigma uncertainty of 1.7 km/s and residual amplitudes of 2-8 km/s, but no uncertainties are given for the radial profiles, and the statistical significance of the arm/inter-arm difference is not quantified. The authors should report the uncertainty on each radial-bin value, including spatial covariance, and a significance level for the spiral pattern, ideally from Monte Carlo realizations that propagate the full analysis chain.
  3. [Section 2 / Breda et al. 2024b] The core data processing relies on an unpublished pipeline described only as 'Breda et al., 2024b (in prep.)', which is not listed in the references. This makes the results difficult to reproduce. The paper should provide a detailed account of the pipeline's steps in the appendix, include a reference to a public repository or companion paper, or state explicitly which steps are new versus standard.
  4. [Section 4 / Fig. 3a] The AVR comparison with the simulation g106 involves 'adjusting sigma by summing a constant value'. Since this is an unconstrained parameter, the apparent agreement with the S-shape should be tested for sensitivity to the offset; alternatively, the offset should be physically motivated. Without this, the comparison remains speculative and should be framed accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting errors: 'EWH(α)' for 'EW(Hα)', 'week nebular emission' for 'weak nebular emission', '0.25 Gr' for '0.25 Gyr' in the Fig. 2 caption, and 'van van Donkelaar' in the Introduction. These should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 1c] The statement about the full-map radial profile 'showing however lower values, due to the inclusion of the inner regions where sigma is systematically lower' is unclear; please clarify whether the full-map values are lower than the outside-arm values at all radii and why this is expected.
  3. [References] The reference list contains entries not cited in the text (e.g., Seabroke & Gilmore 2007) and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., 'PASJ, 44, 601Lea17'); please harmonize with the journal style.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract introduces 'A VR' with a space and uses the vague term 'Post-processing'; please state explicitly that the pattern is detected after subtracting a smooth baseline model and define the AVR abbreviation at first use.
  5. [Fig. A.1] The Fig. A.1 caption states that 'The sigma_spiral features are evident in all cases', but the main text emphasizes the residual map. Please state explicitly whether the spiral is visible in the raw sigma maps before KINEMETRY subtraction, and if so, show a direct comparison between the raw and residual maps in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sigma-spiral detection and age-velocity correlation are measured independently of the interpretive AVR framework.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) a grand-design spiral pattern in the baseline-subtracted stellar velocity dispersion map, (ii) a spatial correlation of this pattern with younger luminosity-weighted ages and enhanced EW(Halpha), and (iii) an interpretive AVR framework compared with external simulations. None of these reduces to its own inputs by construction. The spiral-arm regions are defined using the HST F450W photometric residual map after KINEMETRY subtraction, while the sigma pattern is measured in an independent kinematic residual map produced from MUSE spectroscopy; the two maps are different observables processed through distinct physical channels. The age and EW(Halpha) maps are direct FADO spectral-synthesis products, and EW(Halpha) is shown without KINEMETRY subtraction, so the correlation of low sigma with young ages and star formation does not rely on the same subtracted model that defines the arms. The paper also provides a robustness test against the KINEMETRY subtraction and the manual arm selection by comparing radial profiles of observed sigma and luminosity-weighted age for spaxels selected purely by increasing EW(Halpha) (Fig. 3b,c), finding the same anti-correlation. The KINEMETRY harmonic subtraction is a modeling choice whose possible artifact is a correctness risk, not circularity, because no fitted parameter is reused to force the residual spiral pattern; a null-test or independent-smooth-subtraction test would strengthen the paper but its absence does not make the derivation circular. The only in-prep self-citation (Breda et al. 2024b) describes the data-reduction pipeline and is not used to assert the physical conclusion; the key analysis codes (PPXF, BAYES-LOSVD, FADO, KINEMETRY) are external and standard. The AVR interpretation is explicitly speculative and is compared qualitatively to Bird et al. (2021) and Martig et al. (2014) without fitting those simulations to the data. Thus no circular step is present; the paper earns the lowest circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three domain assumptions: the reliability of FADO/BC03 luminosity-weighted ages, the appropriateness of KINEMETRY harmonic subtraction, and the interpretation of line-of-sight velocity dispersion as intrinsic random motion. No physical free parameters are fitted to force the AVR; the only fitted values are the harmonic-expansion coefficients used for baseline subtraction and a hand-added constant offset in the comparison with a simulated galaxy. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • KINEMETRY harmonic expansion coefficients (ellipse geometry per radius) = not stated
    Used to model and subtract the smooth underlying maps (Appendix A.5-A.7); the residual spiral pattern is defined relative to this model, so the choice of harmonic order and ellipse fitting affects the residual amplitude and morphology.
  • Constant sigma offset to align NGC 4030 AVR with simulation g106 = not stated
    In Section 4, the resemblance to Martig et al. (2014) g106 is noted 'after adjusting sigma by summing a constant value', a hand-added parameter in the qualitative comparison.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption FADO spectral synthesis with the BC03 SSP library yields luminosity-weighted stellar ages accurate enough to resolve 0.25-1.25 Gyr differences between spiral arms and inter-arm regions.
    Age estimates in Section 2/Fig. 2 rely on SSP fitting over 38 ages and 4 metallicities; luminosity weighting biases ages toward young, luminous stars, and the age-metallicity degeneracy is not fully explored.
  • domain assumption KINEMETRY harmonic subtraction removes only the smooth, near-axisymmetric galaxy structure and preserves the spiral signal in the residual maps.
    The claimed pattern is observed in the residuals after subtracting the best-fitting harmonic model (Appendix A.5); if the model partially absorbs the spiral structure, the residual amplitude and significance would be underestimated or distorted.
  • domain assumption The fitted line-of-sight velocity dispersion (via PPXF/BAYES-LOSVD after nebular continuum subtraction) traces the intrinsic random motion of the stellar populations without significant bias from projection, asymmetric drift, or multiple components along the line of sight.
    Section 2 fits single Gaussian-Hermite LOSVDs to each Voronoi bin; in an inclined disk, superposed populations or non-circular streaming motions can broaden or narrow the measured sigma independent of stellar age.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large-Scale Stellar Age-Velocity Spiral Pattern in NGC 4030." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WW3P3B3C

@misc{pith2026241116372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large-Scale Stellar Age-Velocity Spiral Pattern in NGC 4030},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WW3P3B3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16372}
}
read the original abstract

The processes driving the formation and evolution of late-type galaxies (LTGs) continue to be a debated subject in extragalactic astronomy. Investigating stellar kinematics, especially when combined with age estimates, provides crucial insights into the formation and subsequent development of galactic discs. Post-processing of exceptionally high-quality Integral Field Spectroscopy (IFS) data of NGC 4030 acquired with the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE), clearly reveals a striking grand design spiral pattern in the velocity dispersion map not previously detected in other galaxies. This pattern spatially correlates with HII regions, suggesting that stars currently being born exhibit lower velocity dispersion as compared to surrounding areas where star formation (SF) is less active. We examine the age-velocity relation (AVR) and propose that its configuration might be shaped by a combination of heating mechanisms, seemingly consistent with findings from recent high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations. The complex structure of the uncovered AVR of NGC 4030 support the hypothesis that stellar populations initially inherit the velocity dispersion {\sigma} of the progenitor cold molecular gas, which depends on formation time and galactocentric distance, subsequently experiencing kinematic heating by cumulative gravitational interactions during their lifetime. While advancing our understanding of the AVR, these findings offer a new framework for investigating disk heating mechanisms, and their role in the evolution of galactic disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16372 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel a) Illustration of the selected regions highlighting the spiral arms of NGC 4030, having as reference the HST photometric frame in the filter F450W, after subtracting the contribution of the underlying main body with KINEMETRY. Panel b) Stellar velocity dispersion residual map (∆σ⋆) of NGC 4030 with the spiral arms overlaid. Panel c) Radial profiles of ∆σ⋆inside (blue line) and outside (red line) the delineate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels a) & b) Luminosity-weighted stellar age assessed by FADO, followed by the respective radial profiles, inside (blue) and outside (red) the delineated spiral arms, with grey denoting the radial profile across the entire galaxy. Panels c) & d) Comparable to panels a) & b) but displaying instead the baseline-subtracted (i.e., after subtracting the KINEMETRY best-fitting model) luminosity-weighted age map of NGC 4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel a) Age-Velocity relation (AVR) of NGC 4030 accounting for all bins displaying luminosity-weighted ages obtained with FADO. Values of the redshift at each τ⋆,L are provided along the upper horizontal axis. Panel b) Radial profiles of the observed σ⋆ for the whole map (grey) and by selecting spaxels that show increasing levels of EW(Hα) (in blue, with lighter shades corresponding to higher EW(Hα) levels). Panel … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antoja T., Ramos P., Garc \' a-Conde B., Bernet M., Laporte C. F. P., Katz D., 2023, A&A, 673, A115

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    J., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1286

    Aumer M., Binney J. J., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1286

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Aumer M., Binney J., Sch \"o nrich R., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1697

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Bacon R., Accardo M., Adjali L., Anwand H., Bauer S., Biswas I., Blaizot J., et al., 2010, SPIE, 7735, 773508

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 461

    Barbanis, B., & Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461

    work page 1967

  6. [6]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  7. [7]

    C., Loebman S

    Bird J. C., Loebman S. R., Weinberg D. H., Brooks A. M., Quinn T. R., Christensen C. R., 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1815

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Bradley L., Sip o cz B., Robitaille T., Tollerud E., Vin \' cius Z., Deil C., Barbary K., et al., 2021, zndo

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    & Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  2. [10]

    Carlberg R. G. & Sellwood J. A., 1985, ApJ, 292, 79

    1985

  3. [11]

    Casagrande L., Schönrich R., Asplund M., Cassisi S., Ramírez I., Meléndez J., Bensby T., Feltzing S., 2011, A&A, 530, A138

    2011

  4. [12]

    & Copin Y., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

    Cappellari M. & Copin Y., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

    2003

  5. [13]

    & Emsellem E., 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    Cappellari M. & Emsellem E., 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    2004

  6. [14]

    Cappellari M., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  7. [15]

    M., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363

    Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodr\' e , L., Stasi\' n ska, G., Gomes, J. M., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363

    2005

  8. [16]

    2000, AJ, 119, 800

    Dehnen, W. 2000, AJ, 119, 800

    2000

  9. [17]

    E., Guhathakurta P., Seth A

    Dorman C. E., Guhathakurta P., Seth A. C., Weisz D. R., Bell E. F., Dalcanton J. J., Gilbert K. M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 803, 24

    2015

  10. [18]

    van Donkelaar F., Agertz O., Renaud F., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3806

    2022

  11. [19]

    De Simone R., Wu X., Tremaine S., 2004, MNRAS, 350, 62

    2004

  12. [20]

    M., den Brok M., Onodera M., Brinchmann J., Marino R

    Erroz-Ferrer S., Carollo C. M., den Brok M., Onodera M., Brinchmann J., Marino R. A., Monreal-Ibero A., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5009

    2019

  13. [21]

    Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Martig M., 2021, A&A, 646, A31

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fatheddin H., Sajadian S., 2023, ApJ, 945, 75

    2023

  15. [23]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707017

    Fioc M., Rocca-Volmerange B., 1997, A&A, 326, 950. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707017

    1997 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Förster Schreiber N. M. et al., 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364

    2009

  17. [25]

    C., 1991, in Sundelius B., ed., Dynamics of Disc Galaxies

    Freeman K. C., 1991, in Sundelius B., ed., Dynamics of Disc Galaxies. Göteborgs Univ. , Göteborg , p. 15

    1991

  18. [26]

    A., Bittner A., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., M \'e ndez-Abreu J., Kim T., Fragkoudi F., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., et al., 2020, A&A, 643, A14

    Gadotti D. A., Bittner A., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., M \'e ndez-Abreu J., Kim T., Fragkoudi F., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., et al., 2020, A&A, 643, A14

    2020

  19. [27]

    et al., 2011, ApJ, 733, 101

    Genzel R. et al., 2011, ApJ, 733, 101

    2011

  20. [28]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    2000

  21. [29]

    1980, ApJ, 241, 425

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425

    1980

  22. [30]

    Gómez A., Grenier S., Udry S., Haywood M., Meillon L., Sabas V., Sellier A., Morin D., 1997, in Battrick B., ed., Hipparcos: Venice 97

    1997

  23. [31]

    Gomes, J. M. & Papaderos, P., 2017, A&A, 603, A63, ESA SP-402. European Space Agency , Noordwijk , p. 621

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hänninen J., Flynn C., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 731

    2002

  25. [33]

    & Carlberg R

    Huang S. & Carlberg R. G., 1997, ApJ, 480, 503

    1997

  26. [34]

    Kassin S. A. et al., 2012, ApJ, 758, 106

    2012

  27. [35]

    Kokubo E., Ida S., 1992, PASJ, 44, 601Lea17

    1992

  28. [36]

    T., Copin Y., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 787

    Krajnovi \'c D., Cappellari M., de Zeeuw P. T., Copin Y., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 787

    2006

  29. [37]

    Alvensleben U., Loose H.-H., 1995, A&A, 303, 41

    Krueger H., Fritze-v. Alvensleben U., Loose H.-H., 1995, A&A, 303, 41

    1995

  30. [38]

    R., 2017, PASJ, 69, 32

    Kumamoto J., Baba J., Saitoh T. R., 2017, PASJ, 69, 32

    2017

  31. [39]

    G., & Ostriker, J

    Lacey, C. G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1985, ApJ, 299, 633

    1985

  32. [40]

    T., Wisnioski E., Brooks A

    Leaman R., Mendel J. T., Wisnioski E., Brooks A. M., Beasley M. A., Starkenburg E., Martig M., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1879

    2017

  33. [41]

    C., Newman J

    Licquia T. C., Newman J. A., 2015, ApJ, 806, 96

    2015

  34. [42]

    Martig M., Minchev I., Flynn C., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2474

    2014

  35. [43]

    Martig M., Minchev I., Flynn C., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2452

    2014

  36. [44]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 112

    Minchev, I., & Famaey, B. 2010, ApJ, 722, 112

    2010

  37. [45]

    J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D

    Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, ApJ, 403, 74

    1993

  38. [46]

    Pessa I., Schinnerer E., Sanchez-Blazquez P., Belfiore F., Groves B., Emsellem E., Neumann J., et al., 2023, A&A, 673, A147

    2023

  39. [47]

    I., Fricke K

    Papaderos P., Izotov Y. I., Fricke K. J., Thuan T. X., Guseva N. G., 1998, A&A, 338, 43

    1998

  40. [48]

    C., Garnett D

    Quillen A. C., Garnett D. R., 2001, in Funes J. G. Corsini E. M., eds, Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco , p. 87

    2001

  41. [49]

    E.\ 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    Salpeter, E. E.\ 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  42. [50]

    Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Gorgas, J., Cardiel, N., & González, J. J. 2006b, A&A, 457, 787

  43. [51]

    M., Gilmore G., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1348

    Seabroke G. M., Gilmore G., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1348

    2007

  44. [52]

    Stott J. P. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 457,

    2016

  45. [53]

    Spitzer L. Jr. , Schwarzschild M., 1951, ApJ, 114, 385

    1951

  46. [54]

    Spitzer L. Jr. , Schwarzschild M., 1953, ApJ, 118, 106

    1953

  47. [55]

    A., Singh H

    Valdes F., Gupta R., Rose J. A., Singh H. P., Bell D. J., 2004, ApJS, 152, 251

    2004

  48. [56]

    R., Mihos J

    Walker I. R., Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1996, ApJ, 460, 121

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.