Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

A multi-wavelength investigation of spiral structures in $z > 1$ galaxies with JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spiral arms in z ~ 1.5 galaxies show density-wave shock signatures in nine of eighteen measured arms.

desk verdict First z>1 spiral offset measurements are real; the density-wave/tidal/clumpy split rests on an assumed trailing direction and needs kinematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03325 v1 pith:XTSXO2XF submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA

Boris S. Kalita , Si-Yue Yu , John D. Silverman , Emanuele Daddi , Luis C. Ho , Andreas L. Faisst , Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky , Annagrazia Puglisi
show 13 more authors
Simon Birrer Daichi Kashino Xuheng Ding Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe Zhaoxuan Liu Darshan Kakkad Francesco Valentino Olivier Ilbert Georgios Magdis Arianna S. Long Shuowen Jin Anton M. Koekemoer Richard Massey
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords spiralarmsdensitywaveshigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTNIRCamgalaxymorphologycolorgradientscosmicnoon
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 paper asks whether spiral arms in galaxies at the peak of cosmic star formation, around z ≈ 1.5, are made by the same physical processes as local spirals. To answer it, the authors measure, for eighteen arms in eight massive star-forming galaxies, the spatial offset between the arm as seen in rest-frame optical light (JWST F150W) and as seen in rest-frame near-infrared light (F444W). They find that nine arms show optical light peaking ahead of the near-infrared arm, five show the reverse, and three are not seen in the optical at all. Interpreting the sign of the offset in the same way it is interpreted in local galaxies, they conclude that the first group is driven by density-wave shocks, the second by tidal interactions, and the third by stochastic clumpy star formation. The result matters because it carries a decades-old diagnostic from the local universe to the epoch when most stars in today's massive galaxies formed.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic is a two-band flux-peak offset. After subtracting a bulge-disk model fitted with GALIGHT, the residual near-infrared image is deprojected to a face-on geometry using the disk axis ratio, and a polar-shapelet transform (an expansion of the deprojected image into smooth azimuthal basis functions) keeps only azimuthal modes m = 2, 3, 4 to isolate the spiral pattern. A GALFIT model of disk plus amplified spiral components then produces segmentation maps from which arm skeletons are traced, and transverse masks are placed along each skeleton in steps of two pixels. At each step a skewed Gaussian is fit to the F150W and F444W flux profiles; the sign and magnitude of the peak offset, with a measured systematic uncertainty of ~0.13 kpc, is the arm's classification criterion. The physical interpretation leans on the local-universe result that dust produced in a spiral shock sits on the leading side of the arm, so a positive offset (optical ahead of near-infrared) marks a trailing density wave, a negative offset marks a tidally accelerated or leading wave, and no offset marks a co-rotating material origin.

What would settle it

Map the velocity field of one positive-offset arm (for example with ALMA CO or JWST/NIRSpec Hα) and check whether the arm pattern is indeed slower than the local disk rotation, as a trailing density wave requires; if the arm co-rotates with the disk or the optical peak trails in a galaxy without a companion, the offset-sign interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On JWST/NIRCam images of eight spectroscopically confirmed massive star-forming galaxies at z ≈ 1.5, the paper detects eighteen spiral arms in residual images after subtracting a bulge-plus-disk model from the rest-frame near-infrared F444W data. Along each arm it measures a cross-arm flux profile in PSF-matched F150W (rest-frame optical) and F444W (rest-frame near-infrared) images, fits a skewed Gaussian to each profile, and records the peak-to-peak offset. Fifteen arms are detected in both bands. Nine have robust positive offsets of 0.2–0.8 kpc, meaning the optical peak lies ahead of the near-infrared arm in the direction of spiral propagation; the paper attributes these to dust produced in spiral shocks on the leading side of density-wave arms. Five arms have negative offsets of 0.2–0.8 kpc, three of them in two galaxies with clear companion interactions, and are attributed to tidally accelerated waves. Three remaining arms are detected only in F444W, and are attributed to stochastic clumpy star formation without a systematic velocity offset between arm and disk. The paper concludes that the population of z > 1 spirals is a mixture of these mechanisms, analogous to the local universe.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation requires that dust created in a spiral shock lies on the leading side of the arm, dimming young stars so that their optical light peaks slightly ahead of the arm, exactly as in local spirals; if high-redshift clumpy disks place dust differently, or if the PSF-matching and deprojection steps create a systematic optical-ahead shift, the arm-by-arm classification loses its meaning even if the measured offsets are real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nine of the eighteen arms show the positive optical-ahead offset expected for density-wave shocks, so density waves appear to be a genuine, common mechanism for spiral structure at z ≈ 1.5.
  • Five arms show the opposite sign, with three in interacting systems, indicating that tidal interactions can push spiral waves into the regime where they lead rather than trail the disk.
  • The three arms detected only in the near-infrared imply a population of spiral features whose star formation is too clumpy or dust-obscured to produce a coherent optical arm, likely stochastic in origin.
  • The offset varies along individual arms and appears to decline at large radius in at least one galaxy, a trend expected as arms approach corotation, so larger samples could use such gradients to estimate pattern speeds.
  • Because the method measures offsets in a fixed, reproducible way, it can be applied directly to other JWST imaging surveys to build a statistical census of spiral-arm origin at high redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If offset sign is a faithful formation-mechanism tag, then the mix of signs in this small sample implies that at z ≈ 1.5 no single process dominates spiral-arm formation, and that kinematic follow-up, not morphology alone, is needed to confirm each arm's origin.
  • A natural test would be to compare offset amplitude with gas fraction or clumpiness across a larger sample: the density-wave picture predicts stronger, more coherent positive offsets in smoother, less clumpy disks, and weaker or absent offsets in clumpy ones.
  • The paper deliberately leaves out galaxies with faint, patchy arms, so the true fraction of stochastic, flocculent spirals at z > 1 is probably higher than the three-of-eighteen arms found here; simulations that add clumpy star formation to mock JWST images could calibrate this selection bias.
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 uses JWST/NIRCam COSMOS-Web imaging of eight massive star-forming galaxies at z_spec ~ 1.5 to measure offsets between rest-frame optical (F150W) and rest-frame near-IR (F444W) flux distributions across 18 spiral arms. Spiral arm locations are determined from F444W bulge+disk subtraction, deprojection, polar-shapelet filtering of m=2-4 modes, GALFIT spiral models, and skeletonization; fluxes are then mapped in fixed masks perpendicular to the arm paths. The authors report offsets of order 0.2-0.8 kpc for 14 of 18 arms, with 9 arms showing positive offsets (interpreted as density-wave shocks), 5 showing negative offsets (interpreted as tidally driven arms), and the remaining arms showing no offset or no optical detection (interpreted as stochastic/clumpy star formation). The paper presents this as evidence that spiral arms at z > 1 have a multi-faceted origin similar to the local Universe.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, this is the first systematic, model-based quantification of spiral-arm color offsets at z > 1 and would open a genuinely new observational window on spiral-arm dynamics at cosmic noon. The methodological pipeline is transparent and largely reproducible with public tools and data: PSF-matched images, bulge+disk subtraction, shapelet-based arm isolation, model skeletons, skewed-Gaussian peak fitting, and an injected point-source estimate of systematic uncertainty (0.13 kpc). Credit is due for attempting a quantitative route where previous work at these redshifts was mostly visual. The weakness is interpretive: the sign of the offset is defined relative to an assumed trailing-wave propagation direction, no kinematic confirmation is available, the arm-by-arm counts are not statistically significant, and the sample is small and SFR-selected. As a method paper and pilot measurement the work is valuable; as a demonstration of the density-wave/tidal/clumpy classification it is not yet conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Sec. 5] The sign convention for positive vs. negative offsets is fixed by assigning each arm a propagation direction 'based on the expected propagation for density waves' (Sec. 4, paragraph beginning 'Additionally, we assign a direction'). This is equivalent to assuming all 18 arms are trailing. The subsequent classification of the five negative-offset arms as tidal is therefore not independent of the density-wave hypothesis: if any of these arms are leading density waves, their negative offsets would be the expected density-wave signature, not a tidal signature. The paper itself notes in Sec. 1 that strong tidal perturbations can produce leading waves (Thomasson et al. 1989; Buta et al. 1992, 2003), and three of the five negative-offset arms lie in the two galaxies with visible companions. Without an independent measurement of disk rotation direction and near/far side, or at least a quantitative defense of the trailing assumption, the abstract's conclusion that 'these offsets reflect the presence of density waves' and the 9/18 density-wave vs. 5/18 tidal tally are not uniquely determined by the data.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 6] The sign distribution does not provide statistically significant support for a physical dichotomy. Among the 15 arms detected in both bands, 10 show positive offsets and 5 negative; the two-sided binomial probability of a result this extreme under a symmetric null is about p ~ 0.3. The text calls this a 'marginal bias toward positive values,' but the abstract and summary convert this into a confident 9/18 density-wave / 5/18 tidal classification. The paper should report a confidence interval on the fraction of positive offsets, account for the clustering of arms within only eight galaxies, and avoid drawing mechanistic conclusions from the raw sign counts alone.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 2] The systematic uncertainty of 0.13 kpc is estimated with an injected point source that is run through the deprojection and reversal procedure, but the polar-shapelet transform used to determine mask positions is explicitly excluded from the error estimate, and the GALFIT spiral model that defines the arm paths is not part of the injection test either. In addition, the F150W image is PSF-matched to F444W with a Gaussian kernel (Sec. 2); any residual PSF mismatch or a wavelength-dependent centroid shift from the matching procedure would directly bias the measured offsets, whose quoted values are only ~0.2-0.8 kpc. The authors should quantify the PSF-matching contribution by repeating the measurement with the opposite matching direction or with simulated disks containing known injected offsets, and should include the arm-location uncertainty in the reported error budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (1)] The parameter F in Eq. (1) combines an absolute offset in kpc with a dimensionless significance ratio; setting alpha = 0.5 treats these two quantities as commensurable, but no sensitivity test for alpha is reported. At minimum, the authors should show that the arm-by-arm classification is unchanged for alpha in a reasonable range such as 0.2-0.8.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4] The arm counts are presented inconsistently: the abstract refers to 'the remaining cases with no detected offsets' after 9 positive and 5 negative arms, leaving four arms, while Sec. 4 says three arms are not detected in F150W and one additional arm has a positive offset below the 0.13 kpc threshold. Please clarify in the abstract or text that the 'no offset' category includes both non-detections in F150W and sub-threshold offsets.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that 'the final two in red' denote possible interacting companions, but the red coloring is not visible in the monochrome/printed version of the figure and the IDs are not otherwise flagged in the text; please add an explicit marker or mention the IDs in the caption.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript would benefit from an arm-by-arm table listing each arm's host ID, m-component, measured maximum offset, its uncertainty, the F-statistic value, and the assigned mechanism; this would greatly improve reproducibility given that the classification is the central result.
  5. [Throughout] Several LaTeX accent artifacts remain in the text (e.g., 'S ersic', 'F aisst', 'Mart ´ ınez-Garc ´ ıa'); these should be cleaned during production to avoid rendering issues.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Measured offsets carry the result; the interpretive framework is external and testable, not definitional.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational rather than circular: F150W and F444W flux peaks are measured by fitting skewed Gaussians to flux profiles across masks placed on model-derived spiral skeletons (Secs. 3.2-3.3). The resulting sign counts (9 positive, 5 negative, 3 none) are raw measurements, not outputs of a model fitted to the density-wave/tidal/clumpy classification. Eq. (1) merely selects the maximum offset per arm and does not encode the physical mechanism. The Sec. 5 interpretation imports local-universe priors, notably the dust-on-leading-side picture from Yu & Ho (2018) and the kinematic assumption that arms trail below corotation; these are external assumptions, not identities within the paper. The self-citations (Kalita et al. 2024a,b; Yu & Ho 2018, 2020) supply the sample and interpretive framework but do not force the measured sign distribution. The Sec. 4 statement that arm direction is assigned based on expected density-wave propagation could be wrong for individual interacting systems, but that is a scientific limitation or robustness concern, not a circular reduction: the measured offsets remain independent of that assignment. No equation equates a fitted parameter with a predicted quantity, and no claim reduces by construction to its input.

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

The central claim rests on standard observational astronomy assumptions: bandpass-to-rest-frame mapping, Sersic decomposition, and the local-universe density-wave dust geometry. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha in F statistic = 0.5
    Eq. (1) combines absolute offset and significance with equal weight; the choice is hand-set and affects which radial point is taken as the 'maximum offset' for each arm, though not the sign of the offsets.
  • m=2,3,4 harmonic filtering
    Polar-shapelet transform keeps only azimuthal components m=2,3,4 and discards higher modes as noise/clumps; this choice shapes which spiral patterns are recoverable, but the authors state higher modes are noise-dominated (Sec. 3.2).
  • Mask dimensions = 15 x 3 pixels
    Flux measurement masks of 15 pixels length and 3 pixels width (~4 kpc x ~1.3 FWHM) are chosen; other sizes would change the sampling of the peak positions, though offsets are larger than the width.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The near-IR bulge-disk model gives the correct inclination and deprojection for the galaxy disk
    Deprojection in Sec. 3.2 uses the axis ratio from the F444W fit; if the intrinsic disk is not circular or the fit is biased by spiral light, the shapelet decomposition could create artificial m=2 structure.
  • domain assumption Spiral shock dust resides on the leading side of the density-wave arm in high-redshift galaxies, as inferred locally
    The entire classification of positive vs negative offsets as density-wave vs tidal relies on this local-universe dust geometry (Sec. 5, first two paragraphs).
  • domain assumption Trailing arms and sub-corotation dynamics apply to z~1.5 disks
    The positive-offset signature is interpreted as trailing density waves below corotation; no kinematic data in this paper establish pattern speeds or corotation radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multi-wavelength investigation of spiral structures in $z > 1$ galaxies with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTSXO2XF

@misc{pith2026250103325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multi-wavelength investigation of spiral structures in $z > 1$ galaxies with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTSXO2XF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03325}
}
abstract

Recent JWST observations have revealed the prevalence of spiral structures at $z > 1$. Unlike in the local Universe, the origin and the consequence of spirals at this epoch remain unexplored. We use public JWST/NIRCam data from the COSMOS-Web survey to map spiral structures in eight massive ($> 10^{10.5}\,\rm M_{\odot}$) star-forming galaxies at $z_{\rm spec} \sim 1.5$. We present a method for systematically quantifying spiral arms at $z>1$, enabling direct measurements of flux distributions. Using rest-frame near-IR images, we construct morphological models accurately tracing spiral arms. We detect offsets ($\sim 0.2 - 0.8\,\rm kpc$) between the rest-frame optical and near-IR flux distributions across most arms. Drawing parallels to the local Universe, we conclude that these offsets reflect the presence of density waves. For nine out of eighteen arms, the offsets indicate spiral shocks triggered by density waves. Five arms have offsets in the opposite direction and are likely associated with tidal interactions. For the remaining cases with no detected offsets, we suggest that stochastic 'clumpy' star formation is the primary driver of their formation. In conclusion, we find a multi-faceted nature of spiral arms at $z > 1$, similar to that in the local Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image compilation of the sample: (top panels) The RGB images (F150W, F277W, F444W) of the 8 galaxies used in this work are 100×100 pixels, or 3′′ ×3 ′′. The COSMOS2015 (Laigle et al. 2016) IDs are provided for each galaxy, with the final two in red denoting the possible presence of an interacting companion. All are within a redshift range of 1.43 ≤ z ≤ 1.74 and have stellar masses of 1010.5−11.4 , M⊙. The correspond… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Locating the spiral arms: The de-projected resid￾ual F444W images (first column), the same image with only the m=2−4 components (second column), the GALFIT best￾fit model for the disk+spiral components with the spiral arms amplified (as discussed in Sec. 3.2; third column), and the segmentation regions created out of the model (fourth col￾umn) for each galaxy in our sample. The segmentation maps will be used to trac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The model-based spiral skeletons overlaid on the de-projected residual F444W images of the galaxies in our sample. negative offset shows the reverse. We observe that the offset is not constant along the arms but shows clear radial variations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left)Positive color offsets in id 732171: (top panels) Residual F150W and F444W images after bulge and disk subtraction, with spiral arm paths over-plotted and expected propagation direction indicated by arrows. The first image on the top left also shows examples of t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial distribution of offsets: The radial variation of the offset between the peaks of the F150W and F444W flux distributions across the spiral arms for the galaxies shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum offset distribution: The normalized number distribution of the maximum offset between the F150W and F444W flux distributions across the spiral arms in our sample. For our sample, Ngalaxy = 8. The x-axis is shown in kpc (for z = 1.5). We create this histogram by…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Athanassoula, E., Romero-G´ omez, M., & Masdemont, J. J. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 67, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14273.x

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    R., & Wada, K

    Baba, J., Saitoh, T. R., & Wada, K. 2013, ApJ, 763, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/46 2013

  3. [3]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  4. [4]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  5. [5]

    2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    Birrer, S., & Amara, A. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 2018

  6. [6]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3283, doi: 10.21105/joss.03283

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3283, doi: 10.21105/joss.03283

    doi:10.21105/joss.03283 2021

  7. [7]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 358, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06613.x 11

    Bottema, R. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 358, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06613.x 11

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    A., & Byrd, G

    Buta, R., Crocker, D. A., & Byrd, G. G. 1992, AJ, 103, 1526, doi: 10.1086/116165

    work page doi:10.1086/116165 1992

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    J., Byrd, G

    Buta, R. J., Byrd, G. G., & Freeman, T. 2003, AJ, 125, 634, doi: 10.1086/345821

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, A&A, 591, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527866

    Contini, T., Epinat, B., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527866

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 686, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/686 de Vaucouleurs, G

    Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., Walter, F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 686, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/686 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45932-0 7

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b90

    Ding, X., Silverman, J., Treu, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b90

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2014, PASA, 31, e035, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.31

    Dobbs, C., & Baba, J. 2014, PASA, 31, e035, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.31

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    L., Theis, C., Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Theis, C., Pringle, J. E., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 625, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16161.x

    2010

  10. [19]

    2018, A&A, 616, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732370

    Elbaz, D., Leiton, R., Nagar, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732370

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 67, doi: 10.1086/592190

    2008 doi

  12. [21]

    M., & Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., & Elmegreen, B. G. 1987, ApJ, 314, 3, doi: 10.1086/165034 —. 2014, ApJ, 781, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/11

    1987 doi

  13. [22]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., & Dressler, A. 1982, MNRAS, 201, 1035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/201.4.1035

    1982 doi

  14. [23]

    L., Brinch, M., Casey, C

    Faisst, A. L., Brinch, M., Casey, C. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09619, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09619

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    B., & Drory, N

    Fisher, D. B., & Drory, N. 2008, AJ, 136, 773, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Shapley, A. E., Genzel, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/45

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    S., Baba, J., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Baba, J., Saitoh, T. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/109

    2011 doi

  17. [26]

    E., Smail, I., Moran, S

    Geach, J. E., Smail, I., Moran, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 730, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L19

    2011 doi

  18. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    Genzel, R., Newman, S., Jones, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/101

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    B., Liu, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Jolly, J. B., Liu, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef1a

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    Gerola, H., & Seiden, P. E. 1978, ApJ, 223, 129, doi: 10.1086/156243

    1978 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Swinbank, A

    Gillman, S., Tiley, A. L., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3576

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    M., & Clarke, C

    Gittins, D. M., & Clarke, C. J. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 909, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07560.x G´ omez-Guijarro, C., Toft, S., Karim, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab206

    2004

  23. [32]

    A., & Graham, J

    Gonzalez, R. A., & Graham, J. R. 1996, ApJ, 460, 651, doi: 10.1086/176999

    1996 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06100

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Wise, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06100

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    M., Johnson, H

    Harrison, C. M., Johnson, H. L., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1965, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx217

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 63, 236, doi: 10.1086/142976

    1926 doi

  28. [37]

    2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Calabr` o, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    1994, A&A, 287, 55

    Jungwiert, B., & Palous, J. 1994, A&A, 287, 55

    1994

  30. [39]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 960, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4

    doi

  31. [40]

    S., Suzuki, T

    Kalita, B. S., Suzuki, T. L., Kashino, D., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2781

    doi

  32. [41]

    Kalnajs, A. J. 1973, PASA, 2, 174, doi: 10.1017/S1323358000013461

    1973 doi

  33. [42]

    D., Rodighiero, G., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L8

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    D., Sanders, D., et al

    Kashino, D., Silverman, J. D., Sanders, D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06c4

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    C., & Clarke, C

    Kendall, S., Kennicutt, R. C., & Clarke, C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 538, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18422.x

    2011

  36. [45]

    1995, in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, doi: 10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. 1995, in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, doi: 10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    1995

  37. [46]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu276

    Kim, Y., & Kim, W.-T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu276

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43eb

    Kuhn, V., Guo, Y., Martin, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad43eb

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    S., et al

    Lang, P., Wuyts, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/11

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    D., Daddi, E., et al

    Liu, Z., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4096

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/103

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    1970, ApJL, 159, L151, doi: 10.1086/180500

    Lynds, R. 1970, ApJL, 159, L151, doi: 10.1086/180500

    1970 doi

  44. [53]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

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

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    2019, A&A, 621, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834456 12

    Marasco, A., Fraternali, F., Posti, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834456 12

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    J., Haeussler, B., et al

    Margalef-Bentabol, B., Conselice, C. J., Haeussler, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac080 Mart ´ ınez-Garc ´ ıa, E. E., & Gonz´ alez-L´ opezlira, R. A. 2013, ApJ, 765, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/105 Mart ´ ınez-Garc ´ ıa, E. E., Gonz´ alez-L´ ope...

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 18, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1805

    Puerari, I. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 18, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1805

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    M., Long, A

    McKinney, J., Casey, C. M., Long, A. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.08346, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08346

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    E., Schinnerer, E., Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/45

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    W., & Arnett, W

    Mueller, M. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1976, ApJ, 210, 670, doi: 10.1086/154873

    1976 doi

  51. [60]

    B., & Abraham, R

    Nair, P. B., & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJS, 186, 427, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/2/427

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    2001, AJ, 121, 1024, doi: 10.1086/318762

    Nomura, H., & Kamaya, H. 2001, AJ, 121, 1024, doi: 10.1086/318762

    2001 doi

  53. [62]

    H., Kim, W.-T., Lee, H

    Oh, S. H., Kim, W.-T., Lee, H. M., & Kim, J. 2008, ApJ, 683, 94, doi: 10.1086/588184

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    L., Garuda, N., et al

    Polletta, M., Frye, B. L., Garuda, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450671

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    M., & Pezzulli, G

    Posti, L., Fraternali, F., Di Teodoro, E. M., & Pezzulli, G. 2018, A&A, 612, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833091

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 5217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2914

    Puglisi, A., Daddi, E., Valentino, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2914

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    Reynolds, J. H. 1927, The Observatory, 50, 185

    1927

  59. [68]

    Roberts, W. W. 1969, ApJ, 158, 123, doi: 10.1086/150177

    1969 doi

  60. [69]

    C., Daddi, E., et al

    Rujopakarn, W., Williams, C. C., Daddi, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accc82

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    2000, MNRAS, 319, 377, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03650.x

    Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 377, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03650.x

    2000

  62. [71]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5d6

    Sattari, Z., Mobasher, B., Chartab, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5d6

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    2007 doi

  64. [73]

    A., & Carlberg, R

    Sellwood, J. A., & Carlberg, R. G. 1984, ApJ, 282, 61, doi: 10.1086/162176 —. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2132

    1984 doi

  65. [74]

    Shetty, R., & Ostriker, E. C. 2008, ApJ, 684, 978, doi: 10.1086/590383

    2008 doi

  66. [75]

    Shu, F. H. 1970, ApJ, 160, 89, doi: 10.1086/150409 —. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 667, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023426

    1970 doi

  67. [76]

    D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/12

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    P., & Alexander, P

    Sleath, J. P., & Alexander, P. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.507

    1995 doi

  69. [78]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  70. [79]

    P., Swinbank, A

    Stott, J. P., Swinbank, A. M., Johnson, H. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw129

    2016 doi

  71. [80]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781, doi: 10.1038/nature08773

    2010 doi

  72. [81]

    2024a, A&A, 684, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347255

    Tan, Q.-H., Daddi, E., de Souza Magalh˜ aes, V., et al. 2024a, A&A, 684, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347255

    doi

  73. [82]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16578

    Tan, Q.-H., Daddi, E., Magnelli, B., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16578

    doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    J., Sundelius, B., et al

    Thomasson, M., Donner, K. J., Sundelius, B., et al. 1989, A&A, 211, 25

    1989

  75. [84]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    Toft, S., Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Magnelli, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/68

    2014 doi

  76. [85]

    1969, ApJ, 158, 899, doi: 10.1086/150250 —

    Toomre, A. 1969, ApJ, 158, 899, doi: 10.1086/150250 —. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 437, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002253

    1969

  77. [86]

    1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    1972 doi

  78. [87]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1458

    2013 doi

  79. [88]

    Yu, S.-Y., Cheng, C., Pan, Y., Sun, F., & Li, Y. A. 2023, A&A, 676, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346140

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    Yu, S.-Y., & Ho, L. C. 2018, ApJ, 869, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacd —. 2020, ApJ, 900, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac5b

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    C., Barth, A

    Yu, S.-Y., Ho, L. C., Barth, A. J., & Li, Z.-Y. 2018, ApJ, 862, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb25

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    C., & Wang, J

    Yu, S.-Y., Ho, L. C., & Wang, J. 2021, ApJ, 917, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c77

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.