Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Central kiloparsec region of Andromeda. I. Dynamical modelling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that M31's chaotic central velocity field is a warped, torn nuclear disk reorienting after a recent head-on collision with an M32-like galaxy.

desk verdict A genuinely useful SITELLE velocity field and a plausible three-component warp-and-ring model for M31's center, but the qualitative fit and the spherical-potential assumption keep it conditional rather than accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18460 v2 pith:M7X5QLBD submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.GA

Lucie Cros , Françoise Combes , Anne-Laure Melchior , Thomas Martin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:individual:M31kinematicsanddynamicsnucleardiskwarpedtearingintegralfieldspectroscopymoleculargasgalaxycollisions
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 claims that the complex, asymmetric velocity field of ionized and molecular gas in the central kiloparsec of M31 is produced by three gas components moving in a stellar-dominated potential: the main disk (inclination 77°, position angle 37°), an off-centered tilted ring, and a warped nuclear disk. The authors build a static dynamical model in which 2.4 million particles follow near-circular orbits in an almost spherical, bulge-dominated potential, then rotate and offset each concentric ring to reproduce the observed twisting, double-peaked, and torn velocity structures. They find that the best configuration (scenario 3) has the three structures decoupled, with a warped zone where the nuclear disk tears into the 1 kpc ring, matching both the SITELLE Hα/[NII] velocity field and the IRAM CO(2-1) double components. If correct, this explains the long-standing puzzle of M31's central gas hole, double velocity components, and lopsided ring in a collision scenario rather than a bar-driven scenario.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a static three-component dynamical model: a main disk, a tilted offset ring, and a nuclear warped disk, built as a set of misaligned concentric circular orbits in a gravitational potential composed of Plummer spheres for the dark halo, bulge, and nucleus, and Miyamoto-Nagai disks for the stellar and gaseous disks. Each gas particle is assigned the circular-orbit speed in this potential, corrected by an epicyclic asymmetric drift with Toomre parameter Q = 1.3, and then each radius is given its own inclination, position angle, and two sky-plane offsets to create the warp and ring geometry. The fitting procedure compares the predicted velocity field and second moment maps to the SITELLE Hα/[NII] kinematics and the IRAM-30m CO(2-1) data across four geometric scenarios, with scenario 3 (fully decoupled structures) giving the best qualitative match.

What would settle it

A high-resolution stellar kinematic map of the central kiloparsec that measures the actual gravitational potential and its pattern speed would settle the claim: if the box-peanut bulge's non-axisymmetric torques are strong enough to drive the observed S-shape and velocity jumps, then a circular-orbit model in a spherical potential would fail, and a bar-plus-shock model would reproduce the same SITELLE cube. Concretely, measuring the full non-circular velocity field (radial and tangential streaming terms) from the SITELLE Hα/[NII] cube would show whether large radial streaming appears along the bar's major axis rather than the warp geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The kinematical observations of the central kiloparsec of Andromeda correspond to a dynamical re-orientation of the perturbed nuclear disk: a series of warps tears the disk into an offset 1-kpc ring, following a recent head-on collision with an M32-like galaxy. The paper argues that the twisted velocity winding within about 200 pc is the signature of a warped nuclear disk that is almost face-on at the center, while the two widely separated velocity components seen along the minor axis in both Hα and CO are the projection of a tilted, offset inner ring superposed on the main disk. The best-fitting geometry has the main disk at inclination 77° and position angle 37°, an inner ring centered about 322 pc north of the nucleus with its own inclination and position angle, and a nuclear warped disk connecting to the ring through a torn transition zone. This structure is presented as the kinematic fingerprint of a collision that tilted and warped the nuclear disk, which is now settling back to equilibrium with the m=1 waves damping down.

Load-bearing premise

The central kiloparsec potential is treated as almost spherical and bulge-dominated, so all gas is put on circular orbits with only a small asymmetric-drift correction; if non-circular motions from the triaxial box-peanut bulge contribute significantly to the velocity kinks, the fitted warped disk and tilted ring would be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The central gas hole and the double-velocity components along the minor axis are explained by projection of a tilted ring and a warped nuclear disk, rather than by bar-driven shocks.
  • The off-centered 1 kpc dust and gas ring is a torn remnant of the nuclear disk, not an inner Lindblad resonance ring of a bar.
  • The triaxial box-peanut bulge can remain as a pre-collision bar remnant while the thin bar in the disk was destroyed, reconciling stellar kinematics with the lack of a bar signature in the gas.
  • Scenario 3 predicts specific locations where two velocity components should appear along the line of sight, such as the crescent-shaped region in the southwest, which can be checked with higher-resolution integral-field data.
  • The nuclear warped disk connects naturally to the previously reported inner warp in HI, extending the known 'warp in the warp' down to the central kiloparsec.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the collision scenario is correct, the fitted 322 pc north offset of the ring center should correlate with the wake of the M32-like encounter; a hydrodynamical simulation of the collision could predict the ring offset and warp amplitude that the static model leaves as free parameters.
  • Beyond the paper: the circular-orbit assumption could be tested with a stellar kinematic map of the central kiloparsec at matched resolution; if stars show no corresponding warp or ring structure, the gas-only warps would more plausibly be transient shock features rather than a settled disk reorientation.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct spectral fit of the SITELLE cubes with two-component line profiles at every pixel, rather than comparison to moment maps, would provide a quantitative likelihood comparison between scenario 3 and the bar-plus-shock interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a dynamical model for the central kiloparsec of M31, combining newly reduced SITELLE Hα/[NII] integral-field data with archival CO(2-1) and dust maps. The authors identify three gas components—a main disk, a tilted inner ring, and a warped nuclear disk—and construct a static, axisymmetric stellar potential in which gas particles are placed on circular orbits with an epicyclic/asymmetric-drift correction. The geometrical parameters of the three components are adjusted by hand to reproduce the observed velocity field, and the best qualitative match (scenario 3) is interpreted as evidence for a recent head-on collision with an M32-like galaxy. The paper includes a full description of the data reduction, velocity extraction, and the four geometric scenarios considered.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper provides a coherent dynamical explanation for the complex central velocity field of M31, supporting the long-standing collision scenario of Block et al. (2006). The strengths are the fully sampled ionized-gas velocity field, the joint use of ionized and molecular gas tracers, and the explicit modeling of disk warping and tearing. However, the significance is limited by the qualitative nature of the fit: the parameters are not derived from a quantitative optimization, no uncertainties are given, and the comparison with observations is visual. The central kinematic features are real, but the paper does not yet demonstrate that the three-component geometry is uniquely required rather than one of many possible interpretations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2 and Tables 2–3] The fit is qualitative: Section 5.2 states that the geometrical parameters were 'essentially fitted on the northeast region' and Section 5.3 concludes with 'best qualitative model'. No residuals, chi-squared values, or parameter uncertainties are reported, and the southwest region is excluded from the fit because of a presumed shock. As a result, the central claim that the three-component model reproduces the observed velocity field is not quantitatively established. I ask the authors to provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., residual maps between the model and observed velocity fields, a goodness-of-fit statistic, and an exploration of parameter degeneracies) or to clearly state the model as a schematic interpretation rather than a fitted model.
  2. [§4.1 and §6] The assumption that the central kpc potential is 'almost spherical' and that gas follows circular orbits (Eq. 4) is load-bearing, because the fitted warps, inclinations, and offsets are derived from this model. Yet Section 6 itself reviews evidence for a triaxial box-peanut bulge with pattern speeds of 20–40 km/s/kpc and for non-circular, S-shaped motions in the ionized gas (Opitsch et al. 2018; Feng et al. 2022, 2024). If non-circular motions contribute substantially to the observed velocity winding and the southeast crescent, the warped nuclear disk and tilted ring may be artifacts of fitting a circular-orbit model to bar-like flows. The authors should quantitively estimate the amplitude of non-circular motions within 1 kpc (e.g., from the Feng et al. models) and show that they are negligible compared to the 100–300 km/s features, or repeat the modeling in the published triaxial potential and demonstrate that the warps and ring are still required.
  3. [§5.3 and Figs. 21–22] The geometrical parameters (inclinations, position angles, offsets, warp extent) are fitted to the same velocity map that is subsequently compared with the model prediction. The agreement therefore mostly reflects the fitting procedure, not an independent prediction. This circularity should be acknowledged explicitly, and the authors should provide an independent test. For example, they could fit the model to only a subset of the velocity field (e.g., the NE region) and compare the prediction to the SE and SW regions, or predict the CO line profiles at positions not used in the fit and compare with the IRAM-30m data. Without such a test, the 'confrontation' of predicted and observed velocity fields does not validate the three-component scenario over alternative interpretations.
  4. [Table 2 and §7] There is an inconsistency in the orientation of the main disk: Table 2 lists inclination 35° and position angle 77°, while the text and the conclusion (Section 7) state inclination 77° and PA 37°. This is not a typographical nuance; it directly affects the reproduction of the model and the interpretation of the projected geometry. The authors must correct the table and confirm which values were actually used in the modeling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] The reference to 'According to ?' is an unresolved citation and should be completed.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The notation '||− →v||(r) = r sqrt(r dΦ/dr)' is ambiguous; please clarify the square-root placement and the definition of r in cylindrical versus spherical coordinates.
  3. [§5.3] The phrase 'cube moments 1 and 2' is used without definition; for clarity, specify that these are the intensity-weighted velocity and velocity-dispersion maps.
  4. [Figs. 5 and 11] The captions of the bottom panels of Fig. 5 and the color coding in Fig. 11 would benefit from a more explicit description of what the green triangles represent and how the flux-ratio threshold for the second component was chosen.
  5. [Table 3] The note that only varied parameters are displayed is helpful, but the table should explicitly state that unlisted parameters are identical to those in Table 2, to avoid confusion when comparing scenarios.
  6. [§4.3] The term 'teared apart' is used repeatedly; 'torn apart' is the standard English form. This is a wording issue only.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Velocity-field 'prediction' is a re-projection of parameters fitted to that same velocity field; the mass model is independent, so the circularity is partial.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5, opening paragraph; Sec. 5.3, 'Fitting results']
    "The parameters for the modeling are adjusted to fit the velocity map shown in the top right panel of Fig. 5. ... According to these parameters, we predict the velocity field in the four scenarios, represented on Fig. 21 and Fig. 22, for the cube moments 1 and 2 respectively."

    The synthetic velocity fields in Fig. 21 are generated from the same geometrical parameters (inclination, PA, radii, and offsets of the warped nuclear disk and tilted ring; Tables 2 and 3) that were optimized to match the observed velocity map. The subsequent confrontation of these maps with the data therefore checks the model's ability to re-describe its fitting target; a mismatch would only indicate failure of the projection or rotation algorithm, not an independent test of the warped-disk-plus-ring hypothesis. The southwest region was excluded from the fit, but the northeast region used for fitting is also part of the later comparison, and the maps are masked with the data.

full rationale

The central circular step is in Sec. 5/5.3: the paper adjusts all geometrical parameters against the observed velocity map and then presents the resulting synthetic maps as 'predictions' of the velocity field, comparing them with the same data. This is a double use of the data: the confrontation validates the fit rather than testing a forecast. The mass model is taken from literature (Sec. 5.1), and the disk-tearing/warp framework of Raj et al. (2021) is external, so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The spherical-potential and circular-orbit assumption in Sec. 4.1 is a physical limitation and a possible source of model error, but it is not circular. The conclusion that the kinematics reflect a warped, torn disk after a collision therefore rests on a qualitative fit whose geometry was chosen to reproduce the observations; the match is forced by construction, though the independent mass model prevents the whole argument from being purely definitional. Score 6 reflects this single construction-level reduction rather than a self-citation chain or a fully equivalent derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a literature-based axisymmetric potential, gas on circular orbits, and a hand-fitted decomposition into three rigid gas structures. The free parameters are the geometric degrees of freedom; no new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Warped nuclear disk inclination = 85 deg
    Adjusted to reproduce the central velocity winding; no uncertainty given (Table 2).
  • Warped nuclear disk position angle = 65 deg
    Adjusted in the fit of the central velocity field (Table 2).
  • Warped nuclear disk outer radius = 30 pc
    Sets extent of warped region; adjusted (Table 2).
  • Inner ring inclination = 48 deg
    Tuned to match the tilted ring kinematics (Table 2).
  • Inner ring position angle = -27 deg
    Tuned to match the tilted ring velocity signature (Table 2).
  • Inner ring inner radius = 900 pc
    Ring location adjusted to match the 1-kpc dust ring and velocity double components (Table 2).
  • Inner ring width = 300 pc
    Adjusted parameter (Table 2).
  • Inner ring east offset = -27 pc
    Off-centering of the ring center, adjusted (Table 2).
  • Inner ring north offset = 322 pc
    Off-centering of the ring center, adjusted (Table 2).
  • Main disk inner hole radius = 400 pc
    Hole in the main disk, adjustable parameter (Section 4.3.1, Table 2).
  • Flare thickness parameters alpha and beta = alpha=6%, beta=30 pc
    Fixed by hand to define the flared disk profile (Eq. 3); affects the simulated geometry.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential in the central kpc is dominated by stars and is almost spherical, justifying circular orbits
    Section 4.1 states 'the central kpc is dominated by the bulge, so the total potential can be considered almost spherical. This justifies our simplified assumption of circular orbits'. The triaxial box-peanut bulge discussed in Section 6 is not included in the potential.
  • domain assumption Gas mass is dynamically negligible in the inner kpc
    Section 4 intro: gas is weak in molecular, atomic, and ionized form, so potential is assumed dominated by stars; morphological transformation of gas by gas self-gravity is neglected.
  • domain assumption Gas follows circular orbits with epicyclic perturbations and a Toomre Q=1.3 asymmetric-drift correction
    Section 4.2 uses Eq. 4 and the asymmetric drift formula with Q taken from Melchior & Combes (2011).
  • domain assumption Plummer and Miyamoto-Nagai potentials with literature scale lengths adequately represent the mass distribution
    Section 4.1 and Table 1; parameters are converted from exponential-disk fits in prior work and are not independently verified here.
  • ad hoc to paper The line-of-sight component of each structure's offset is neglected; only east and north offsets are used
    Figure 17 caption states 'we neglect the component of the offset parallel to the line of sight', and Section 4.3 says coordinate shifts are not used to modify velocities.
  • ad hoc to paper The three dynamical components are independent and rigid except for the warped nuclear disk
    Section 4.3: 'we consider the substructures to be stiff'; scenario 3 decouples all three structures (Section 5.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central kiloparsec region of Andromeda. I. Dynamical modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7X5QLBD

@misc{pith2026241118460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central kiloparsec region of Andromeda. I. Dynamical modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7X5QLBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18460}
}
abstract

The Andromeda galaxy (M31) is the most nearby giant spiral galaxy, an opportunity to study with high resolution dynamical phenomena occurring in nuclear disks and bulges, able to explain star formation quenching, and galaxy evolution through collisions and tides. Multi-wavelength data have revealed in the central kpc of M31 strong dynamical perturbations, with an off-centered tilted disk and ring, coinciding with a dearth of atomic and molecular gas. Our goal to understand the origin of these perturbations is to propose a dynamical model, reproducing the global features of the observations. We are reporting about integral field spectroscopy of the ionized gas with H$\alpha$ and [NII] obtained with SITELLE, the optical imaging Fourier transform spectrometer (IFTS) at the Canada France Hawaii telescope (CFHT). Using the fully sampled velocity field of ionized gas, together with the more patchy molecular gas velocity field, previously obtained with the CO lines at IRAM-30m telescope, and the dust photometry, we identify three dynamical components in the gas, the main disk, a tilted ring and a nuclear warped disk. A mass model of the central kpc is computed, essentially from the stellar nuclear disk and bulge, with small contributions of the main stellar and gaseous disk, and dark matter halo. The kinematics of the ionized and molecular gas is then computed in this potential, and the velocity field confronted to observations. The best fit helps to determine the physical parameters of the three identified gas components, size, morphology and geometrical orientation. The results are compatible with a recent head-on collision with a M-32 like galaxy, as previously proposed. The kinematical observations correspond to a dynamical re-orientation of the perturbed nuclear disk, through warps and tearing disk into ring, following the collision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dust location in the central kpc field of view of Andromeda. Left panel: Dust emission map obtained from the 8¯m Spitzer map with a subtraction of the stellar continuum at 3.6¯m. (Block et al. 2006). The contours correspond to the ionized gas intensity displayed in the top left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Background subtraction. Top panel: Fit of the sky lines over a low brightness region of the field of view. The vertical gray lines in￾dicate the position of the atmospheric sky lines. The five red vertical lines indicate the position of the foreground emission of the DIG of our own Galaxy in the [N II](6563,6584), [S II] (6717, 6731) and Hα lines at a velocity of -38±5 km/s. Middle panel: Sky lines model and Galacti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of the old stellar population modeling in a 200×200 pixels2 box near the center of the galaxy. Top panel: Random spectra taken in the box to illustrate the strong brightness gradient. Bottom panel: Same spectra after a normalization by their mean flux. The re￾sulting median spectrum of all the normalized spectra contained in the box is shown in blue, the smoothed version used as an estimation of the old stel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of emission lines fitting on background corrected spec￾tra displaying only one (top panel) or two components (bottom panel). Top panel: Fit over a background subtracted spectrum revealing the pure emission of the DIG. Bottom panel: Spectrum displaying two reso…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intensity and kinematic information extracted from the ionized gas with SITELLE SN3 data cube. Top panels: Ionized gas inten￾sity (left) and the heliocentric velocity (right) corresponding to the main velocity component. The ionized gas intensity has a threshold of 6 ×…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CO(2-1) spectra averaged over ∼ 60” regions in diameter in the northwest (top) and the southeast (bottom) of the observed IRAM￾30m moment-zero map. The NW corresponds to (-160”,120”) off￾sets, and the SE to (150, -110”) offsets relative to the M31 center RA=00:42:44.35…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measured broadening when using a sincgauss model (broad￾ened Gaussian emission-line) to fit two unresolved emission-lines. We have simulated the fit with a sincgauss model of two unresolved emission-lines with different flux ratios. We can clearly see that the measured…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simplified illustration of the map processing, on N = 9 con￾centric circles, with radii regularly spaced between Rmin = 0 and Rmax = 0.8 kpc. Top panel: Velocity map overlaid by the concentric circles (in gray dotted lines). The red dots (resp. blue triangles) are the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Minimal and maximal values, Vmin, V 2nd min , and Vmax, of the velocity on N = 300 concentric circles on the map, centered on the BH, with radii regularly spaced from Rmin = 0 to Rmax = 1 kpc. Left panel: Velocity map overlaid by the extreme points of the velocity. Th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cross-section of the gaseous disk along a diameter. The cross￾ing of the r and z axis represents the center of the galaxy. sum up, we have 2.4 million gas particles, each characterized by a coordinate vector (x, y,z, vx, vy, vz) in phase space. The result of this dist…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Zoom-in on the winding in the very center of the map. The anal￾ysis is conducted on N = 100 radii from Rmin = 0 to Rmax = 0.35 kpc. Top panel: Vmin (blue), V 2nd min , and Vmax velocities superposed on the kine￾matic map, together with the maximal velocity (red bullet…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Position angle (PA) of the main kinematic features as a function of the galactocentric center, computed for the maximal values of the velocity in the northeast region (red) and the southwest region (blue). We distinguish the winding below 300 pc. Beyond 300 pc, the po…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic representation of the geometry of the gas in the cen￾tral kpc of M31. The graph represents a simplified cross section of the gas disk in the sky plane containing the central black hole, represented by the black cross. The blue part is the main disk, aligned …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Schematic representation of the nuclear warped disk (corre￾sponding to the red substructure in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: It is tilted and offset with respect to the main disk, thus, it can be defined by six parameters: 1. rr the inner radius (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Central 75×75 arcsec2 (285 pc ×285 pc) field of view of An￾dromeda. The white cross corresponds to the optical center. The inten￾sity contours are the same as in the bottom panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Theoretical rotation curve derived from Eq. 4, using parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Four scenarios proposed for the central region in M31, rep￾resented by their schematic transversal cut. Grey lines correspond to transition zones, blue lines to the main disk, red lines to the warped nu￾clear disk, and green lines to the inner ring. When two structure…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Appleton, P. N. & Struck-Marcell, C. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 16, 111

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Arp, H. C. 1964, Science, 145, 952

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    & Beaton, R

    Athanassoula, E. & Beaton, R. L. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1499

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    2011, AJ, 142, 139

    Azimlu, M., Marciniak, R., & Barmby, P. 2011, AJ, 142, 139

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    2001, A&A, 371, 409

    Bacon, R., Emsellem, E., Combes, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 371, 409

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Barmby, P., Ashby, M. L. N., Bianchi, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, L45

    2006

  7. [7]

    L., Majewski, S

    Beaton, R. L., Majewski, S. R., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, L91

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    2005, ApJ, 631, 280 Blaña Díaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al

    Bender, R., Kormendy, J., Bower, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 280 Blaña Díaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210 Blaña Díaz, M., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4279

    work page 2005

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al

    Block, D. L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 832 Bogdán, Á. & Gilfanov, M. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 56

    2006

  2. [10]

    P., Lecoarer, E., Marcelin, M., & Monnet, G

    Boulesteix, J., Georgelin, Y . P., Lecoarer, E., Marcelin, M., & Monnet, G. 1987, A&A, 178, 91

    1987

  3. [11]

    A., Walterbos, R

    Braun, R., Thilker, D. A., Walterbos, R. A. M., & Corbelli, E. 2009, ApJ, 695, 937

    2009

  4. [12]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1395

    Chemin, L., Carignan, C., & Foster, T. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1395

    2009

  5. [13]

    V ., Prugniel, P., Sil’Chenko, O

    Chilingarian, I. V ., Prugniel, P., Sil’Chenko, O. K., & Afanasiev, V . L. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1033

    2007

  6. [14]

    C., Ford, W

    Ciardullo, R., Rubin, V . C., Ford, W. Kent, J., Jacoby, G. H., & Ford, H. C. 1988, AJ, 95, 438

    1988

  7. [15]

    C., Dickel, J

    Crane, P. C., Dickel, J. R., & Cowan, J. J. 1992, ApJ, 390, L9

    1992

  8. [16]

    J., Bell, E

    Dalcanton, J. J., Bell, E. F., Choi, Y ., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 80

    2023

  9. [17]

    2019, A&A, 625, A148 del Burgo, C., Mediavilla, E., & Arribas, S

    Dassa-Terrier, J., Melchior, A.-L., & Combes, F. 2019, A&A, 625, A148 del Burgo, C., Mediavilla, E., & Arribas, S. 2000, ApJ, 540, 741

    2019

  10. [18]

    M., Fardal, M., et al

    Escala, I., Gilbert, K. M., Fardal, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 20

    2022

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 233

    Feng, Z.-X., Li, Z., Shen, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 233

    2022

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 22

    Feng, Z.-X., Li, Z., Shen, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 22

    2024

  13. [21]

    1998, A&A, 338, L33

    Haas, M., Lemke, D., Stickel, M., et al. 1998, A&A, 338, L33

    1998

  14. [22]

    T., Thornley, M

    Helfer, T. T., Thornley, M. D., Regan, M. W., et al. 2003, ApJS, 145, 259

    2003

  15. [23]

    & Combes, F

    Horellou, C. & Combes, F. 2001, Ap&SS, 276, 1141

    2001

  16. [24]

    Ibata, R., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 287

    2005

  17. [25]

    H., Ford, H., & Ciardullo, R

    Jacoby, G. H., Ford, H., & Ciardullo, R. 1985, ApJ, 290, 136

    1985

  18. [26]

    Josey, S. A. & Arimoto, N. 1992, A&A, 255, 105

    1992

  19. [27]

    2022, AJ, 163, 138

    Leahy, D., Seminoff, N., & Leahy, C. 2022, AJ, 163, 138

    2022

  20. [28]

    D., & Wakker, B

    Li, Z., Wang, Q. D., & Wakker, B. P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 148

    2009

  21. [29]

    1956, Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler, 19, 2

    Lindblad, B. 1956, Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler, 19, 2

    1956

  22. [30]

    D., Li, Z., & Peterson, J

    Liu, J., Wang, Q. D., Li, Z., & Peterson, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1879

    2010

  23. [31]

    2001, Chinese Physics Letters, 18, 1420

    Ma, J. 2001, Chinese Physics Letters, 18, 1420

    2001

  24. [32]

    P., Drissen, L., Grandmont, F., & Thibault, S

    Maillard, J. P., Drissen, L., Grandmont, F., & Thibault, S. 2013, Experimental Astronomy, 35, 527

    2013

  25. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864

    Martin, T., Milisavljevic, D., & Drissen, L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864

    2021

  26. [34]

    B., Drissen, L., & Melchior, A.-L

    Martin, T. B., Drissen, L., & Melchior, A.-L. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4130

    2018

  27. [35]

    B., Prunet, S., & Drissen, L

    Martin, T. B., Prunet, S., & Drissen, L. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4223

    2016

  28. [36]

    W., Ibata, R., Martin, N., et al

    McConnachie, A. W., Ibata, R., Martin, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 55

    2018

  29. [37]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 66

    2009

  30. [38]

    Melchior, A. L. & Combes, F. 2011, A&A, 536, A52

    2011

  31. [39]

    Melchior, A. L. & Combes, F. 2013, A&A, 549, A27

    2013

  32. [40]

    & Combes, F

    Melchior, A.-L. & Combes, F. 2016, A&A, 585, A44

    2016

  33. [41]

    & Combes, F

    Melchior, A.-L. & Combes, F. 2017, A&A, 607, L7

    2017

  34. [42]

    L., Viallefond, F., Guélin, M., & Neininger, N

    Melchior, A. L., Viallefond, F., Guélin, M., & Neininger, N. 2000, MNRAS, 312, L29

    2000

  35. [43]

    & Nagai, R

    Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533

    1975

  36. [44]

    2006, A&A, 453, 459

    Nieten, C., Neininger, N., Guélin, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 459

    2006

  37. [45]

    Olsen, K. A. G., Blum, R. D., Stephens, A. W., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 271

    2006

  38. [46]

    H., Saglia, R

    Opitsch, M., Fabricius, M. H., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A38

    2018

  39. [47]

    J., & Do˘gan, S

    Raj, A., Nixon, C. J., & Do˘gan, S. 2021, ApJ, 909, 81

    2021

  40. [48]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766

    2006

  41. [49]

    Rubin, V . C. & Ford, W. Kent, J. 1971, ApJ, 170, 25

    1971

  42. [50]

    Stark, A. A. 1977, ApJ, 213, 368

    1977

  43. [51]

    & Higdon, J

    Struck-Marcell, C. & Higdon, J. L. 1993, ApJ, 411, 108

    1993

  44. [52]

    Tabatabaei, F. S. & Berkhuijsen, E. M. 2010, A&A, 517, A77 Article number, page 15 of 15

    2010

Pith tools

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