arxiv: 2605.03676 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Not So Isolated: Green Pea Galaxies in Overdense Environments revealed by VLT/MUSE

A. Arroyo-Polonio , J.M. V\'ilchez , J. Iglesias-P\'aramo , C. Kehrig , E. P\'erez-Montero , R. Amor\'in , B. P\'erez-D\'iaz , M. Hayes

show 4 more authors

I. Breda J. S\'anchez Almeida A. Gim\'enez Alcazar M. Gonz\'alez-Otero

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 04:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords Green Pea galaxiesstarburst galaxiesgalaxy environmentscompanion galaxiesgas accretionoverdense regionsstar formation

0 comments

The pith

Green Pea galaxies reside in overdense environments with distant companions but no ongoing mergers.

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

The paper investigates whether the starbursts in Green Pea galaxies are triggered by interactions with nearby galaxies or by other environmental processes. Analysis of MUSE observations reveals that these galaxies have a companion fraction of 33 percent and sit in regions with about ten times the typical galaxy density. However, the companions are usually separated by around 100 kiloparsecs with no visible signs of current merging activity. This supports a picture where the starbursts are transient events sustained by gas accretion in dense regions rather than by direct galaxy collisions. Such a finding would reshape how we understand the drivers of intense star formation in both local and distant galaxies.

Core claim

Green Pea galaxies show a high rate of companions at large separations in overdense settings, with no evidence for ongoing major mergers, while their physical properties indicate young starbursts contrasting with older companions, and group masses imply substantial dark matter and gas.

What carries the argument

Identification of companion galaxies via emission-line spectroscopy and velocity offsets no greater than 500 km/s, combined with projected separation measurements and dynamical mass calculations.

If this is right

Green Pea starbursts are not triggered by ongoing major mergers with companions at 10-30 kpc distances.
Gas accretion from the surrounding medium in overdense regions sustains these star formation episodes.
These galaxy groups contain far more mass in dark matter and neutral gas than in stars.
Very close mergers below 10 kpc remain possible but untested due to resolution limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Environmental gas supply may play a similar role in regulating star formation at high redshifts where Green Peas serve as analogs.
Future observations with higher spatial resolution could search for undetected close pairs that might alter the triggering picture.
The overdense environments could facilitate the escape of ionizing radiation, relevant for reionization studies.

Load-bearing premise

A line-of-sight velocity difference of 500 km/s or less reliably identifies bound physical companions without significant projection contamination, and the lack of morphological disturbances at observed separations means interactions are not driving the starbursts.

What would settle it

Observing a substantial population of Green Pea galaxies paired with close companions that exhibit tidal features or disturbed morphologies at separations less than 10 kpc would undermine the conclusion against merger triggering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03676 by A. Arroyo-Polonio, A. Gim\'enez Alcazar, B. P\'erez-D\'iaz, C. Kehrig, E. P\'erez-Montero, I. Breda, J. Iglesias-P\'aramo, J.M. V\'ilchez, J. S\'anchez Almeida, M. Gonz\'alez-Otero, M. Hayes, R. Amor\'in.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function of the veloc view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: GP1 system. Each figure shows a cutout of each galaxy with its own colorbar. Spectra are sorted by the total flux of view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: BPT diagram. Green points represent the GPs, while view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distribution of the extinction E(B − V) for GPs (green) and companion galaxies (blue), shown as a smoothed histogram. Individual galaxy positions and names are indicated by vertical marks and labels along the x_axis. We compute the intrinsic Hα luminosity, L(Hα), from the extinction-corrected flux using the luminosity distance DL derived from the spectroscopic redshift of each galaxy, adopting the cosmol… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Flux-weighted velocity dispersion vs stellar mass. Green view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: SFR vs stellar mass for GPs (in green) and their com view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Metallicity vs stellar mass for GPs (in green) and their view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Context. Green Pea galaxies (GPs) are local starburst galaxies serving as analogues for high-redshift star-forming galaxies, particularly Lyman continuum leakers. It remains debated whether their starbursts are driven by internal secular processes or external triggers. Aims. We aim to constrain the role of environment in this triggering, testing whether external influence comes from close interactions or diffuse processes like gas accretion. Methods. We analyse VLT/MUSE observations of 24 GPs at $z \sim 0.2$ to identify companions via spectral line features. We derive key physical properties (extinction, SFR, stellar mass, age, metallicity) for GPs and companions, and estimate group dynamical masses. Results. We identify 22 emission-line galaxies, 11 being companions ($|\Delta v| \leq 500$ km s$^{-1}$). We find a high companion fraction ($33^{+11}_{-8}$%) and a $\sim$1 dex number density excess compared to the field, confirming GPs reside in overdense environments. Companions typically lie at projected separations of $\sim$100 kpc with no evidence of ongoing interactions. Physically, GPs form a homogeneous class of young (mass-weighted age $\sim$230 Myr), metal-poor, high-sSFR starbursts with elevated velocity dispersions. In contrast, companions are more evolved ($\sim$1.6 Gyr) and heterogeneous in stellar mass, metallicity, and dust attenuation. Inferred group dynamical masses are $\sim$3 dex higher than total stellar masses, suggesting significant dark matter and neutral gas. Conclusions. GPs do not appear triggered by ongoing major mergers with close (10-30 kpc) companions. Results favor a scenario where GPs are transient starbursts in overdense regions, plausibly sustained by gas accretion. Limited spatial resolution prevents ruling out very close mergers ($\lesssim 10$ kpc). High dynamical-to-stellar mass ratios imply substantial non-stellar mass in these systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

MUSE data on 24 Green Peas shows overdense environments and a 33% companion fraction at large separations with no interaction signs, but the 500 km/s velocity cut lacks a control sample so projection effects could inflate the key claims.

read the letter

The paper's main finding is that these Green Pea galaxies sit in overdense regions with a 33% companion fraction, yet the 11 identified companions lie at typical projected separations of ~100 kpc and show no morphological disturbances. This leads to the conclusion that ongoing major mergers at those distances are not the trigger, favoring instead transient starbursts sustained by gas accretion in dense environments. The GPs themselves appear as a uniform set of young, metal-poor, high-sSFR objects while companions are older and more heterogeneous, and the group dynamical masses exceed the stellar masses by ~3 dex.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes VLT/MUSE integral-field spectroscopy of 24 Green Pea galaxies at z ≈ 0.2. It identifies 22 emission-line galaxies, of which 11 are classified as companions based on a line-of-sight velocity difference |Δv| ≤ 500 km s^{-1}. The authors report a companion fraction of 33^{+11}_{-8}% and a number density excess of approximately 1 dex relative to the field. They derive physical properties showing GPs as young, metal-poor, high-specific star formation rate starbursts, while companions are more evolved. Group dynamical masses are estimated to be ~3 dex above the total stellar mass. The central conclusion is that GPs are not triggered by ongoing major mergers with companions at projected separations of 10-30 kpc, instead favoring transient starbursts in overdense environments sustained by gas accretion, with caveats on spatial resolution for closer pairs.

Significance. If the reported overdensity and absence of merger signatures are confirmed, this study significantly advances the understanding of the environmental context of Green Pea galaxies, which serve as local analogs for high-redshift star-forming systems. The direct spectroscopic identification of companions and the contrast in stellar population properties between GPs and companions provide valuable empirical constraints. The suggestion of gas accretion as a sustaining mechanism in dense regions offers a plausible alternative to interaction-driven triggering, with implications for models of starburst evolution and Lyman continuum leakage. The work also highlights the importance of considering projection effects and resolution limits in environmental studies.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2 (Companion identification): The velocity threshold of |Δv| ≤ 500 km s^{-1} is used to classify companions, but the manuscript does not provide a calculation of the expected interloper rate. Using the surface density of field emission-line galaxies, the comoving volume probed by the MUSE observations, and the velocity window, an estimate of random alignments should be included to validate the 33% companion fraction and the ~1 dex density excess. Without this quantification or a control sample of non-GP galaxies observed similarly, the overdensity claim and the inference against close-merger triggering remain vulnerable to line-of-sight contamination.
[§4.3] §4.3 (Dynamical mass estimates): The group dynamical masses are reported to be ~3 dex higher than the sum of stellar masses, implying substantial dark matter and neutral gas. However, the exact formula used (e.g., virial theorem application with velocity dispersion and radius), the assumptions about system geometry and equilibrium, and error propagation are not detailed. Given that only line-of-sight velocities and projected separations are available, the reliability of these mass estimates needs explicit justification, as they support the interpretation of gas-rich groups.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The statement of a '~1 dex number density excess compared to the field' does not specify the exact field sample, redshift range, or selection criteria used for comparison; this should be clarified for reproducibility.
[Figures] Figure captions and §4: Ensure velocity histograms and spatial maps include the field distribution for direct visual comparison, and label all axes with consistent units (kpc, km s^{-1}).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Dear Editor, We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report on our manuscript. Their comments highlight important aspects of companion identification and dynamical mass estimation that merit clarification and expansion. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements where possible.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Companion identification): The velocity threshold of |Δv| ≤ 500 km s^{-1} is used to classify companions, but the manuscript does not provide a calculation of the expected interloper rate. Using the surface density of field emission-line galaxies, the comoving volume probed by the MUSE observations, and the velocity window, an estimate of random alignments should be included to validate the 33% companion fraction and the ~1 dex density excess. Without this quantification or a control sample of non-GP galaxies observed similarly, the overdensity claim and the inference against close-merger triggering remain vulnerable to line-of-sight contamination.

Authors: We agree that an explicit estimate of the interloper rate is necessary to robustly support the reported companion fraction and density excess. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph (or subsection) in §3.2 that calculates the expected number of random alignments. This will employ literature values for the surface density of emission-line galaxies at z ≈ 0.2 (drawn from surveys such as SDSS or MUSE deep fields), the comoving volume defined by the MUSE field of view and the redshift slice corresponding to the |Δv| ≤ 500 km s^{-1} window, and standard Poisson statistics for the probability of chance projections. We anticipate this calculation will demonstrate that the expected interloper contribution is substantially lower than the observed 11 companions, thereby reinforcing the ~1 dex overdensity. A matched control sample of non-GP galaxies observed with identical MUSE setups is not available in the present dataset and would require new observations beyond the scope of this work; however, the quantitative interloper estimate directly addresses the line-of-sight contamination concern. revision: yes
Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Dynamical mass estimates): The group dynamical masses are reported to be ~3 dex higher than the sum of stellar masses, implying substantial dark matter and neutral gas. However, the exact formula used (e.g., virial theorem application with velocity dispersion and radius), the assumptions about system geometry and equilibrium, and error propagation are not detailed. Given that only line-of-sight velocities and projected separations are available, the reliability of these mass estimates needs explicit justification, as they support the interpretation of gas-rich groups.

Authors: We acknowledge that the dynamical mass section requires greater methodological transparency. In the revised §4.3 we will explicitly state the estimator employed (a projected virial mass of the form M_dyn = C × σ_los² × R_proj / G, where C is a structure-dependent constant calibrated for galaxy groups, σ_los is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion, and R_proj is the projected harmonic radius), the key assumptions (virial equilibrium, isotropic orbits, and a statistical deprojection factor to convert line-of-sight quantities to 3D), and the error analysis (Monte Carlo resampling of member velocities and positions to propagate uncertainties). We will also add a short discussion of projection effects and the limitations imposed by the modest number of group members, while noting that the order-of-magnitude excess over the stellar mass remains robust. These additions will provide the requested justification for interpreting the systems as gas- and dark-matter-rich. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's core results—companion identification via emission-line detections and the conventional |Δv| ≤ 500 km s^{-1} threshold, the resulting 33% companion fraction, ~1 dex density excess relative to external field samples, stellar population parameters from standard fitting, and dynamical mass estimates from observed velocities and sizes—rely on direct MUSE spectroscopy and literature benchmarks rather than any self-referential definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equation or claim reduces to its own inputs by construction; the overdensity and no-close-merger inferences are falsifiable against independent controls and do not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from the authors' prior work. This is the typical honest non-finding for an observational study grounded in new data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest primarily on standard domain assumptions in extragalactic spectroscopy and group dynamics rather than new free parameters or invented entities. The velocity threshold and virial mass assumptions are typical but introduce quantifiable uncertainty in companion counts and mass ratios.

free parameters (2)

Companion velocity threshold = 500 km s^{-1}
Arbitrary cut-off of 500 km s^{-1} used to classify physical association; small adjustments would change the reported 33% fraction and 11 companions.
Group dynamical mass scaling
Virial theorem application to estimate dynamical masses from velocity dispersions and sizes; scaling factors are not independently calibrated in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Emission-line galaxies within 500 km s^{-1} velocity difference are physically associated companions
Standard assumption for identifying group members in redshift surveys; invoked when counting the 11 companions.
domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models yield reliable mass-weighted ages, metallicities, and SFRs from integrated spectra
Used to derive the ~230 Myr ages for GPs and ~1.6 Gyr for companions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5740 in / 1696 out tokens · 72944 ms · 2026-05-07T04:00:35.281164+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

2012, The Astro- physical Journal, 749, 185 Amorín, R

Amorín, R., Pérez-Montero, E., Vílchez, J., & Papaderos, P. 2012, The Astro- physical Journal, 749, 185 Amorín, R. O., Pérez-Montero, E., & Vílchez, J. 2010, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters, 715, L128

2012
[2]

2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A114

Arroyo-Polonio, A., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Kehrig, C., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A114

2023
[3]

G., Johnson, M., et al

Ashley, T., Elmegreen, B. G., Johnson, M., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 148, 130

2014
[4]

2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, V ol

Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, V ol. 7735, SPIE, 131–139

2010
[5]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5

1981
[6]

J., Geller, M

Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 530, 660

2000
[7]

2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics

Billand, J.-B., Elbaz, D., Gentile, F., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics

2025
[8]

2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A103

Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A103

2019
[9]

M., Papaderos, P., et al

Breda, I., Vilchez, J. M., Papaderos, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A29

2022
[10]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000

2003
[11]

C., et al

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 682

2000
[12]

1993, Astronomical Journal, 106, 1784

Campos-Aguilar, A., Moles, M., & Masegosa, J. 1993, Astronomical Journal, 106, 1784

1993
[13]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

2009
[14]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 345, 245

1989
[15]

2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763

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

2003
[16]

2010, Nature, 467, 811

Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 467, 811

2010
[17]

& Birnboim, Y

Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y . 2006, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical soci- ety, 368, 2

2006
[18]

2009, Nature, 457, 451

Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451

2009
[19]

& Tibshirani, R

Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. 1985, Behaviormetrika, 12, 1

1985
[20]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 135, 1877

2008
[21]

1986, Astrophysical Journal, 303, 336 Giménez-Alcázar, A., Amorín, R., Vílchez, J., et al

Gehrels, N. 1986, Astrophysical Journal, 303, 336 Giménez-Alcázar, A., Amorín, R., Vílchez, J., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08484

work page arXiv 1986
[22]

2026, arXiv

Gupta, M., Svoboda, J., Kouroumpatzakis, K., et al. 2026, arXiv

2026
[23]

Heisler, J., Tremaine, S., & Bahcall, J. N. 1985, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 298, Nov. 1, 1985, p. 8-17., 298, 8 Iglesias-Páramo, J., Arroyo, A., Kehrig, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A95

1985
[24]

I., Guseva, N

Izotov, Y . I., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 728, 161

2011
[25]

& Wright, G

Joseph, R. & Wright, G. 1985, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 214, 87

1985
[26]

M., Tremonti, C., et al

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. 1998, The astrophysical journal, 498, 541 Kennicutt Jr, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 531 Kennicutt Jr, R. C., Keel, W. C., Van der Hulst, J., Hummel, E., & Roettiger, K. A. 1987, Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256...

2003
[27]

J., Dopita, M

Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

2001
[28]

J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

2006
[29]

2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 688, A159

Kouroumpatzakis, K., Svoboda, J., Zezas, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 688, A159

2024
[30]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 31

Laufman, L., Scarlata, C., Hayes, M., & Skillman, E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 31

2022
[31]

K., Houghton, R

Lofthouse, E. K., Houghton, R. C., & Kaviraj, S. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2311

2017
[32]

2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A60 Mollá, M., García-Vargas, M., & Bressan, A

Lumbreras-Calle, A., López-Sanjuan, C., Sobral, D., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A60 Mollá, M., García-Vargas, M., & Bressan, A. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 451

2022
[33]

2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 806

Noeske, K., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Vílchez, J., Papaderos, P., & Fricke, K. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 806

2001
[34]

G., Yoon, S.-J., et al

Paudel, S., Sabiu, C. G., Yoon, S.-J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 976, L18 Pérez-Díaz, B., Pérez-Montero, E., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., Vílchez, J. M., & Amorín, R. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 368 Pérez-Montero, E. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2663 Pérez-Montero, E., Amorín, R., Sánchez Almeida, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1237 Pérez-Montero, ...

2024
[35]

D., Vilchez, J., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al

Puertas, S. D., Vilchez, J., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 666, A186

2022
[36]

2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters, 933, L11

Purkayastha, S., Kanekar, N., Chengalur, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters, 933, L11

2022
[37]

2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 68

Purkayastha, S., Kanekar, N., Kumari, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 68

2024
[38]

A., Kniazev, A

Pustilnik, S. A., Kniazev, A. Y ., Lipovetsky, V . A., & Ugryumov, A. 2001, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 373, 24

2001
[39]

K., Hammer, F., Flores, H., & Barway, S

Rawat, A., Kembhavi, A. K., Hammer, F., Flores, H., & Barway, S. 2007, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 469, 483 Sánchez Almeida, J., Elmegreen, B. G., Munoz-Tunón, C., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2014, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 22, 71

2007
[40]

& Mirabel, I

Sanders, D. & Mirabel, I. 1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 749 Sánchez Almeida, J., Elmegreen, B. G., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., et al. 2015, The As- trophysical Journal Letters, 810, L15 Sánchez Almeida, J., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., & Méndez-Abreu, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 74

1996
[41]

& Maddox, S

Telles, E. & Maddox, S. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 311, 307

2000
[42]

2002, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 143, 315

Veilleux, S., Kim, D.-C., & Sanders, D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 143, 315

2002
[43]

1995, Astronomical Journal, 110, 1090

Vilchez, J. 1995, Astronomical Journal, 110, 1090

1995
[44]

M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28

2020
[45]

E., Van Dokkum, P

Whitaker, K. E., Van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 754, L29

2012
[46]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 171

Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 171

2017
[47]

2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 399, 924 Article number, page 10 of 18 A

Zitrin, A., Brosch, N., & Bilenko, B. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 399, 924 Article number, page 10 of 18 A. Arroyo-Polonio et al.: Starburst triggering Appendix A: FoV of the GPs with companions Article number, page 11 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main Fig. A.1: GP3 system. For details of the meaning of each panel, see Fi...

2009