Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Complex kinematics of the galaxies at the end of the Reionization Era

T0 review · 3 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 At $z=5.65$, the galaxy HZ10 is resolved into at least three components that are merging, with cold [C ii] and ionized [O iii] gas moving together.

desk verdict Solid morphological result with honest, underdetermined dynamics; the three-component discovery stands, but the disk-vs-merger classification is not settled and the paper knows it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09033 v1 pith:VCFFRFB4 submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.GA

K. Telikova , J. González-López , M. Aravena , A. Posses , V. Villanueva , M. Baeza-Garay , G. C. Jones , M. Solimano
show 13 more authors
L. Lee R. J. Assef I. De Looze T. Diaz Santos A. Ferrara R. Ikeda R. Herrera-Camus H. Übler I. Lamperti I. Mitsuhashi M. Relano M. Perna K. Tadaki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesgalaxykinematicsmergers[Cii]158micronemissionALMAJWST/NIRSpecreionizationepochHZ10
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 aims to establish that HZ10, a far-infrared bright galaxy at $z=5.65$ previously treated as a single main-sequence object, is actually a closely packed system of at least three components along an east-west line. Using $\sim0.3$ arcsecond ALMA [C ii] 158$\mu$m observations and JWST/NIRSpec rest-frame optical spectroscopy, the authors show that the brightest central component carries a velocity gradient consistent either with rotation or with a close-in merger, and that its rotation-curve fit requires an unusually high intrinsic dispersion near $200$ km s$^{-1}$. They compare [C ii] with [O iii] 5007 Å emission and find that the cold neutral gas and the ionized gas traced by the broad [O iii] component are kinematically well mixed, which they read as evidence for an ongoing interaction rather than a quiescent disk. The result matters because at the end of the reionization epoch, distinguishing rotation from merger is the key to knowing how galaxies assemble, and HZ10 offers one of the few resolved examples of a possible multiple merger at this redshift.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by high-resolution [C ii] 158$\mu$m line observations from ALMA (beam $\sim0.3$ arcsec, about $1.8$ kpc at $z=5.65$), which resolve HZ10-C into roughly five independent beams along its kinematic major axis. Position-velocity diagrams along the main and minor axes, together with aperture spectra fit by single and double Gaussians, provide the rotation curves. DysmalPy—a forward-modeling code that generates a mock data cube from a chosen mass distribution (Sérsic baryon disk plus Navarro-Frenk-White dark halo) and convolves it with the beam and line-spread function—is used to test whether the observed rotation curve is consistent with a rotating disk, with inclination priored from the 2D Sérsic axis ratio. JWST/NIRSpec [O iii] 5007 Å integral-field data, degraded to ALMA's resolution, provide the comparison that ties the neutral gas kinematics to the ionized phase.

What would settle it

An ALMA observation at $\sim0.15$ arcsec resolution matching JWST that resolves HZ10-C into two distinct [C ii] velocity peaks or two separate continuum nuclei would falsify the single-disk interpretation, while a coherent single-peaked velocity field across all channels would support it; a second decisive test would be the detection of a statistically significant broad [C ii] spectral component, which would favor an outflow-dominated rather than rotation-supported system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HZ10 is not a single galaxy: position-velocity diagrams from the new ALMA observations reveal at least three [C ii] components—HZ10-E, HZ10-C, and HZ10-W—separated by $1.5$ and $4$ kpc from the central component. HZ10-C is resolved along its major axis and shows an S-shaped rotation curve; DysmalPy kinematic modeling with a Sérsic baryon disk and Navarro-Frenk-White halo reproduces the curve with $V_{\mathrm{rot}}/\sigma_0 = 1.9$ and intrinsic dispersion $\sigma_0 \approx 200$ km s$^{-1}$, but the authors state explicitly that a dispersion-dominated system or a close double merger cannot be ruled out. Spatially and kinematically, [C ii] emission resembles the broad [O iii] 5007 Å component seen by JWST/NIRSpec across all three components, leading the authors to propose that neutral and ionized gas phases are well mixed and that the system is interacting. On this basis the paper offers three dynamical scenarios: a double merger of HZ10-W with a disturbed clumpy disk of HZ10-C+E, a triple merger in which HZ10-E and HZ10-W join the disk HZ10-C, and a quadruple merger in which both companions merge with a close double merger at HZ10-C.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the premise that HZ10-C plus HZ10-E can be modeled as a single rotating disk, with its inclination set by the 2D Sérsic axis ratio and one intrinsic velocity dispersion; if the central component is actually a close pair of merging galaxies or is dispersion-dominated, the fitted rotation-support value $V_{\mathrm{rot}}/\sigma_0 = 1.9$ no longer carries the disk interpretation, and the paper explicitly concedes this alternative cannot be excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If HZ10 is a multiple merger, its mass and star-formation budget must be divided among at least three components, changing how its position on the main sequence and its gas-depletion timescale are interpreted.
  • A disk model can fit HZ10-C+HZ10-E, but the best-fit intrinsic dispersion near $200$ km s$^{-1}$ is at the high end for rotation-dominated galaxies, so the 'disturbed disk' label remains only one of three surviving scenarios.
  • The kinematic match between [C ii] and broad [O iii] implies that [C ii] in this system traces gas involved in the interaction or outflow, not simply a quiescent cold phase.
  • Distinguishing the double, triple, and quadruple merger scenarios requires ALMA resolution matching JWST's $\sim0.15$ arcsec together with higher spectral resolution than the current data provide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the multiplicity seen in HZ10 is common among $z\sim5$ main-sequence galaxies, some galaxies previously classified as rotating disks from $\sim1$ arcsec [C ii] data may be unresolved mergers, which would raise the inferred merger fraction at the end of reionization.
  • The close [C ii]-against-broad-[O iii] correspondence suggests that [C ii] maps could serve as a proxy for ionized outflows and tidal interactions in reionization-era galaxies where optical lines are faint or obscured.
  • A testable prediction of the well-mixed gas picture is that the resolved [N ii]/[C ii] ratio, which tracks the ionized fraction of the gas, should be roughly uniform across HZ10-C, HZ10-E, and HZ10-W; a strong gradient would instead favor different physical origins for each component.
  • If the quadruple merger scenario is correct, HZ10 is assembling a baryon mass near $10^{11}$ solar masses through several simultaneous interactions, a possible pathway for building massive galaxies by the end of reionization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a morpho-kinematic analysis of the z=5.65 galaxy HZ10 using new ALMA [C II] 158 micron observations at ~0.3 arcsecond resolution and JWST/NIRSpec rest-frame optical integral-field spectroscopy. The authors identify three components (HZ10-E, HZ10-C, HZ10-W) in both [C II] and [O III] emission, argue that the system is interacting, and test whether the central C+E complex can be described as a rotating disk. They use DysmalPy to fit a Sersic baryon disk plus NFW halo model, derive Vrot/sigma0 = 1.9, and propose three dynamical scenarios: a disturbed disk merging with HZ10-W, a disk with satellite HZ10-E merging, and a close merger/triple-merger interpretation. They also compare [C II] with [O III] kinematics and conclude that the ionized and neutral gas phases are well mixed.

Significance. If the morphological claims hold, HZ10 becomes a rare resolved example of a multi-component interacting system at z~5.65, and the [C II]/[O III] comparison provides a useful test of multiphase ISM kinematics in early galaxies. The paper is commendable for using JWST data to independently confirm the faint HZ10-E component, for checking the JvM correction and channel-masking effects, and for presenting MCMC credible intervals for the DysmalPy fits. However, the dynamical classification and the Vrot/sigma0 = 1.9 value are conditional on a single tested model, so the paper's contribution to merger/disk classification statistics is weaker than the abstract implies. The three-component morphology and the interacting nature are well supported; the disk-versus-merger interpretation of the central complex requires additional quantitative model comparison or a more explicit presentation as a hypothesis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Fig. 7] The DysmalPy modeling tests only a single rotating-disk model (Sersic baryon disk plus NFW halo) for the HZ10-C+HZ10-E complex, and the resulting Vrot/sigma0 = 1.9 is presented as a characterization of the system's dynamical state. Because no alternative model (e.g., a two-component merger or a dispersion-dominated configuration) is fit to the same data and compared, this ratio supports the disk scenario only conditionally. The paper itself states in Sec. 5 that 'we cannot rule out the dispersion-dominated nature of the HZ10-C+HZ10-E system' and in Sec. 7 that 'we cannot currently discard any of the three possible scenarios.' This underdetermination should be reflected in the abstract and conclusions, or a formal model comparison should be performed. As written, the Vrot/sigma0 value and the 'disturbed clumpy rotation disk' language in scenario (i) can easily be read as a dynamical classification that the current data do not establish.
  2. [Sec. 5, Table 1 and Appendix A] The Gaussian priors for r_eff, Sersic index n, and inclination i in the DysmalPy fit are taken from a 2D Sersic fit to the blended [C II] moment-0 map of HZ10-C+HZ10-E. If HZ10-E is a physically distinct source rather than a clump in a single disk, the axis ratio of the blended light (0.77 +/- 0.01) is not a reliable inclination estimator. Yet the posterior i = 40 +/- 1 deg is extremely tightly constrained, and since Vrot is divided by sin(i), this prior choice propagates directly into Vrot/sigma0. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of their conclusions to the inclination prior, for example by repeating the fit with a wide flat prior on i or with an inclination derived from the JWST-resolved morphology.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Figs. 6-7] The rotation curve is extracted from 0.26 arcsecond apertures with single/double Gaussian centroid fits along the major axis of the C+E complex. With C and E separated by only ~1.5 kpc (about 0.25 arcsecond at this redshift), a two-component blend with different bulk velocities can produce a symmetric S-shaped centroid curve without ordered rotation, and the fitted sigma0 = 196 km/s is high enough to absorb blending and beam smearing. The paper mentions this ambiguity but does not test it quantitatively. I recommend extracting the same rotation-curve observables from mock cubes generated by a two-component model, or otherwise demonstrating that the double-Gaussian components track a single coherent velocity gradient, to validate the disk interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5] The phrase 'references threrein' should be 'references therein'.
  2. [Sec. 7] In the sentence comparing [O III] 5007A/[C II] flux ratios, the text says 'for HZ10-C and HZ10-E this ratio is ~0.5 and ~0.6, respectively,' but the preceding sentence contrasts HZ10-E with HZ10-C and HZ10-W; the second pair should presumably read 'HZ10-C and HZ10-W.'
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption contains the typo 'reft-frame optical spectral line components'; it should be 'rest-frame.'
  4. [Table 1] The RA and Dec entries are formatted as '0s.298 +/- 0s.038' and '0s.419 +/- 0s.037', which is nonstandard for sexagesimal coordinates; consider reporting them in the conventional HH:MM:SS.ss and DD:MM:SS.ss format.
  5. [Appendix B] The statement that 'the authors conclude that the 1D approach is just as effective as the 2D approach and the 3D approach' is vague: specify which authors and provide a reference or analysis, or remove the attribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic disk test is an explicit assumption, not a self-derived prediction, and the three-component claim rests on independent ALMA and JWST data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that HZ10 consists of at least three components and is interacting is established from ALMA [CII] position-velocity diagrams and moment maps in Section 4, and independently corroborated by JWST/NIRSpec rest-frame optical line maps in Section 6, not from the DysmalPy fit. The DysmalPy modeling in Section 5 is explicitly framed as a test of the rotating-disk possibility ('We test the rotating disk possibility using DysmalPy kinematical modeling'), and the paper does not present its best-fit parameters as predictions; Vrot/sigma0 = 1.9 is a derived diagnostic under the assumed disk model. The use of the 2D Sersic fit (reff, n, axis-ratio inclination) as Gaussian priors for the same [CII] cube is a mild input-sharing, but the model is constrained by independently extracted rotation curves, and the paper explicitly declines to force a dynamical classification: 'we cannot rule out the dispersion-dominated nature of the HZ10-C+HZ10-E system' and 'we cannot currently discard any of the three possible scenarios.' Citations to Jones et al. (2024) and Villanueva et al. (2024) involve overlapping authors, but they report independent JWST and ALMA observations that are externally falsifiable and are used as corroboration, not as an unverified uniqueness or ansatz source. Accordingly, no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central morphological claim (three components) rests mainly on the data quality and the JWST cross-check; the dynamical scenario interpretations rest on the DysmalPy disk model with six fitted parameters. The 2D Sersic fit parameters used as priors are also fitted to the same moment-0 map, a mild circularity in the modeling inputs. No new physical entities are postulated; the three components are interpretations of resolved emission.

free parameters (6)
  • Total baryon mass M_bar = log M_bar/Msun = 11.1 (+0.2/-0.3)
    Free parameter in DysmalPy rotating-disk fit to [CII] rotation curves (Sec. 5, Fig. C.1).
  • Disk effective radius r_eff = 1.3 +/- 0.2 kpc
    Free parameter in DysmalPy fit; Gaussian prior from 2D Sersic fit of the [CII] moment-0 map (Sec. 5, Table 1).
  • Sersic index n = 0.55 +/- 0.05
    Free parameter in DysmalPy fit; Gaussian prior from 2D Sersic fit (Sec. 5).
  • Dark matter fraction within r_eff, fDM(r_eff) = 0.3 (+0.3/-0.2)
    Free parameter in the NFW halo component of the DysmalPy model (Sec. 5).
  • Intrinsic velocity dispersion sigma_0 = 196 (+8/-9) km/s
    Free parameter in DysmalPy fit; high value drives the conclusion that a pure rotating-disk interpretation is not unique (Sec. 5).
  • Inclination i = 40 (+1/-1) degrees
    Free parameter in DysmalPy fit; prior from axis ratio of the 2D Sersic model (Sec. 5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LambdaCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, h=0.7 (scale 5.899 kpc/arcsec at z=5.65)
    Adopted at end of Sec. 1; standard in the field, provides physical scale conversions but does not affect the qualitative conclusions.
  • domain assumption [CII] 158um emission traces galaxy kinematics across multiple ISM phases
    Invoked in Sec. 1 (de Blok et al. 2016, Goldsmith et al. 2012); required to interpret [CII] velocity gradients as dynamical tracers.
  • domain assumption HZ10-C+HZ10-E can be approximated by a single rotating disk with a Sersic baryon component and an NFW dark matter halo
    The DysmalPy model in Sec. 5 assumes this; the paper tests it but cannot rule out alternatives, so this assumption is central to the disk-scenario interpretation.
  • domain assumption Disk inclination can be estimated from the axis ratio of the 2D Sersic fit to the [CII] moment-0 map
    Sec. 5: 'we use an estimate from the axis ratio derived during the 2D parametric modeling as a Gaussian prior distribution of the system inclination.' This links morpho-kinematic modeling to the light distribution.
  • domain assumption Broad [OIII] 5007A emission traces outflows and/or tidal interactions, and its kinematic similarity to [CII] implies well-mixed ionized and neutral gas
    Used in Sec. 6 to conclude [CII] and broad [OIII] trace each other, reflecting the interacting nature of the system (finding d).
  • domain assumption HZ10-E is a distinct physical component
    Sec. 4.2 detects a dim emission blob east of HZ10-C; JWST data in Sec. 6 provide independent support, but the three-component decomposition underpins the scenario list.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Complex kinematics of the galaxies at the end of the Reionization Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCFFRFB4

@misc{pith2026241109033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Complex kinematics of the galaxies at the end of the Reionization Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCFFRFB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09033}
}
abstract

The history of gas assembly in early galaxies is reflected in their complex kinematics. While a considerable fraction of galaxies at z~5 are consistent with rotating disks, current studies indicate that the dominant galaxy assembly mechanism corresponds to mergers. Despite the important progress, the dynamical classification of galaxies at these epochs is still limited by observations' resolution. We present a detailed morphological and kinematic analysis of the far-infrared bright main sequence galaxy HZ10 at z=5.65, making use of new high-resolution ($\lesssim0.3$") [CII] 158$\mu$m ALMA and rest-frame optical JWST/NIRSpec observations. These observations reveal a previously unresolved complex morphology and kinematics of the HZ10. We confirm that HZ10 is not a single galaxy but consists of at least three components in close projected separation along the east-to-west direction. We find a [CII] bright central component (C), separated by 1.5 and 4 kpc from the east (E) and west (W) components, respectively. Our [CII] observations resolve the HZ10-C component resulting in a velocity gradient, produced by either rotation or a close-in merger. We test the rotating disk possibility using DysmalPy kinematic modeling and propose three dynamical scenarios for the HZ10 system: (i) a double merger, in which the companion galaxy HZ10-W merges with the disturbed clumpy rotation disk formed by the HZ10-C and E components; (ii) a triple merger, where the companion galaxies, HZ10-W and HZ10-E, merge with the rotation disk HZ10-C; and (iii) a quadruple merger, in which the companion galaxies HZ10-W and HZ10-E merge with the close double merger HZ10-C. Comparing [CII] with JWST/NIRSpec data, we find that [CII] emission closely resembles the broad [OIII] 5007{\AA} emission. The latter reflects the interacting nature of the system and suggests that ionized and neutral gas phases in HZ10 are well mixed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST WFC3/F105W image of HZ10 is shown on panels A and B in greyscale with the black 3-σ contours. A: [Cii] 158 µm integrated intensity of HZ10 is shown by 5-, 10-, and 15-σ red contours. B: 158 µm continuum of HZ10 is shown by 3-, 5-, and 7-σ blue contours. The beam size of the ALMA observations is shown by an ellipse in the bottom left corner of each panel. tentative third component seen as a 158 µm dust continuum … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [Cii] integrated intensity (moment-0, left panel), line-of-sight velocity (moment-1, middle panel), and velocity dispersion (moment-2, right panel) maps of HZ10. Contours correspond to 2-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-σ noise levels estimated from the corresponding moment-0 map. Zero velocity corresponds to the rest-frame [C ii] frequency at z = 5.6548. The dashed and solid green regions on the moment-0 map correspond to the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [Cii] spectrum of HZ10 complex, extracted from the elliptical aperture, shown on the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Position-velocity diagram calculated along the pseudo slit of 10-pixel width placed along the main axis in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Position-velocity diagrams calculated using a pseudo slit of 10- pixel width placed along the major (top panel) and minor (bottom panel) axes of HZ10-C+HZ10-E complex. Zero velocity is calculated for the rest-frame [C ii] frequency at z = 5.6548. Smoothed grey contours…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rotation curves calculated along the major axis of HZ10-E+HZ10-C complex. Data points correspond to the velocity centroids (left panel) and velocity dispersion (right panel) of a single (green) and double (blue and red) Gaussian fit of the spectra within the circular a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of three suggested dynamical scenarios for the HZ10 system consistent with the kinematic modeling of [C ii] emission and observational properties derived from rest-frame optical emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Integrated [Cii] intensity of the whole HZ10 complex is shown in grey scale. To emphasize the spatial positions of the three differ￾ent components, HZ10-E, HZ10-C, and HZ10-W, seen in [Cii] we overplot contours from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: [O iii] 5007Å JWST/NIRSpec spectra (solid black, data cube with degraded spatial resolution and dashed blue with the original spa￾tial resolution) and [Cii] ALMA (filled green, spectral resolution is degraded to match that of [O iii] data) of the HZ10-E (top), HZ10-C …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: From top to bottom: spaxel-by-spaxel flux attributed to the narrow and broad [O iii] emission and the corresponding flux ratio, [O iii] (narrow and broad line emission component) and [C ii] velocity and velocity dispersion maps and their respective comparison maps. Ze…

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. The ALMA-CRISTAL survey: Gas, dust, and stars in star-forming galaxies when the Universe was ~1 Gyr old I. Survey overview and case studies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A spatially resolved ALMA survey of 39 main-sequence galaxies at z~4-6 finds diverse morphologies, an Arp 220-like [CII] deficit, and elevated [CII]/FIR ratios in a previously unexplored surface brightness range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., Fujimoto, S., Finlator, K., et al

    Akins, H. B., Fujimoto, S., Finlator, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 64

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Tamura, Y ., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4294

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    N., Karachentsev, I

    Begum, A., Chengalur, J. N., Karachentsev, I. D., Sharina, M. E., & Kaisin, S. S. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1667

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 160

    2022

  5. [5]

    & Carignan, C

    Bureau, M. & Carignan, C. 2002, AJ, 123, 1316

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    L., Carilli, C., Jones, G., et al

    Capak, P. L., Carilli, C., Jones, G., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 455

    2015

  7. [7]

    & Roy, N

    Chakraborty, A. & Roy, N. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4074

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2021, PASA, 38, e035

    Cortese, L., Catinella, B., & Smith, R. 2021, PASA, 38, e035

    2021

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Cresci, G., Hicks, E. K. S., Genzel, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 115

    2009

  2. [10]

    M., Cresci, G., et al

    Davies, R., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Cresci, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 69

    2011

  3. [11]

    I., Tacconi, L

    Davies, R. I., Tacconi, L. J., & Genzel, R. 2004b, ApJ, 602, 148 de Blok, W. J. G., Healy, J., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01774 de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Smith, J. D. T., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 51 Díaz-Santos, T., Assef, R. J., Blain, A. W., e...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Mundy, C., et al

    Duncan, K., Conselice, C. J., Mundy, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 110

    2019

  5. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1

    Ferrara, A., Vallini, L., Pallottini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1

    2019

  6. [14]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  7. [15]

    Fruchter, A. S. & et al. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibra- tion Workshop, 382–387

    2010

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 107

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Ferrara, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 107

    2019

  9. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 146

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 146

    2024

  10. [18]

    D., Bethermin, M., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Silverman, J. D., Bethermin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H....

    2020

  11. [19]

    C., Béthermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., Béthermin, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A7

    2020

  12. [20]

    F., Langer, W

    Goldsmith, P. F., Langer, W. D., Pineda, J. L., & Velusamy, T. 2012, ApJS, 203, 13

    2012

  13. [21]

    2022, A&A, 660, A137

    Guaita, L., Aravena, M., Gurung-Lopez, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A137

    2022

  14. [22]

    M., Price, S

    Herrera-Camus, R., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Price, S. H., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L8

    2022

  15. [23]

    L., Mack, J., Avila, R., et al

    Hoffmann, S. L., Mack, J., Avila, R., et al. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 53, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 216.02

    2021

  16. [24]

    A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al

    Hunter, D. A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134

    2012

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03374

    Ikeda, R., Tadaki, K.-i., Mitsuhashi, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03374

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C., Bunker, A

    Jones, G. C., Bunker, A. J., Telikova, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12955

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C., Vergani, D., Romano, M., et al

    Jones, G. C., Vergani, D., Romano, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3540

    2021

  20. [28]

    & van Moorsel, G

    Jorsater, S. & van Moorsel, G. A. 1995, AJ, 110, 2037

    1995

  21. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3007

    Kohandel, M., Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3007

    2019

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 685, A72

    Kohandel, M., Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A72

    2024

  23. [31]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Lang, P., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 92 Le Fèvre, O., Béthermin, M., Faisst, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A1

    2017

  24. [32]

    Lewis, A. J. R., Ivison, R. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 96

    2018

  25. [33]

    P., Mobasher, B., Capak, P., et al

    Mallery, R. P., Mobasher, B., Capak, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 128

    2012

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 663, A172

    Markov, V ., Carniani, S., Vallini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A172

    2022

  27. [35]

    B., Whitaker, K

    Miller, T. B., Whitaker, K. E., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, L37

    2022

  28. [36]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17671

    Mitsuhashi, I., Tadaki, K.-i., Ikeda, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17671

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2024, A&A, 690, A197

    Mitsuhashi, I., Tadaki, K.-i., Ikeda, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A197

    2024

  30. [38]

    Z., et al

    Murayama, T., Taniguchi, Y ., Scoville, N. Z., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 523

    2007

  31. [39]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  32. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 132

    Neeleman, M., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 132

    2023

  33. [41]

    W., Amvrosiadis, A., Hayes, R

    Nightingale, J. W., Amvrosiadis, A., Hayes, R. G., et al. 2023, J. Open Source Softw., 8, 4475

    2023

  34. [42]

    W., Hayes, R

    Nightingale, J. W., Hayes, R. G., & Griffiths, M. 2021, J. Open Source Softw., 6, 2550

    2021

  35. [43]

    R., Narayanan, D., et al

    Olsen, K., Greve, T. R., Narayanan, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 105

    2017

  36. [44]

    J., Dunne, L., et al

    Oteo, I., Ivison, R. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 72

    2018

  37. [45]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 14

    2016

  38. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 2540

    Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Gallerani, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2540

    2017

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19008

    Parlanti, E., Carniani, S., Venturi, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19008

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    N., Chengalur, J

    Patra, N. N., Chengalur, J. N., Karachentsev, I. D., & Sharina, M. E. 2016, As- trophysical Bulletin, 71, 408

    2016

  41. [49]

    A., Capak, P

    Pavesi, R., Riechers, D. A., Capak, P. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 151

    2016

  42. [50]

    A., Faisst, A

    Pavesi, R., Riechers, D. A., Faisst, A. L., Stacey, G. J., & Capak, P. L. 2019, ApJ, 882, 168

    2019

  43. [51]

    A., Sharon, C

    Pavesi, R., Riechers, D. A., Sharon, C. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 43

    2018

  44. [52]

    L., Langer, W

    Pineda, J. L., Langer, W. D., Velusamy, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, A&A, 554, A103

    2013

  45. [53]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 160

    Pizzati, E., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 160

    2020

  46. [54]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03379

    Posses, A., Aravena, M., González-López, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03379

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    C., Aravena, M., González-López, J., et al

    Posses, A. C., Aravena, M., González-López, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A46

    2023

  48. [56]

    H., Shimizu, T

    Price, S. H., Shimizu, T. T., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 143

    2021

  49. [57]

    2024, A&A, 689, A273

    Rizzo, F., Bacchini, C., Kohandel, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A273

    2024

  50. [58]

    2022, A&A, 667, A5 Rodríguez Del Pino, B., Perna, M., Arribas, S., et al

    Rizzo, F., Kohandel, M., Pallottini, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A5 Rodríguez Del Pino, B., Perna, M., Arribas, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A187

    2022

  51. [59]

    2021, A&A, 653, A111

    Romano, M., Cassata, P., Morselli, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A111

    2021

  52. [60]

    E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al

    Rowland, L. E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06025

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J., Carniani, S., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Carniani, S., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 178

    2018

  54. [62]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.13020

    Solimano, M., González-López, J., Aravena, M., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.13020

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.04919

    Solimano, M., González-López, J., Aravena, M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.04919

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    & Oosterloo, T

    Staveley-Smith, L. & Oosterloo, T. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 167

    2015

  57. [65]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 1300

    Vallini, L., Ferrara, A., Pallottini, A., & Gallerani, S. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1300

    2017

  58. [66]

    A., Pavesi, R., et al

    Vieira, D., Riechers, D. A., Pavesi, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 174

    2022

  59. [67]

    D., V ogel, S., et al

    Villanueva, V ., Bolatto, A. D., V ogel, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 176

    2022

  60. [68]

    2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2407.09681

    Villanueva, V ., Herrera-Camus, R., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2407.09681

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2563

    2008

  62. [70]

    M., Wisnioski, E., et al

    Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Wisnioski, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 149

    2016

  63. [71]

    2024, ApJ, 966, L36 Article number, page 12 of 16 K

    Xi, H., Peng, B., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, L36 Article number, page 12 of 16 K. Telikova et al.: Complex kinematics of the galaxies at the end of the Reionization Era Appendix A: Morphological 2D parametric modeling We perform parametric 2D modeling of the [C...

    2024

Pith tools

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