Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Polarized Dust Emission in Arp220: Magnetic Fields in the Core of an Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read These observations detect polarized dust emission from the western nucleus of the merging galaxy Arp 220 at 6σ significance, the first detection of magnetic fields in the core of an ultraluminous infrared galaxy.

desk verdict Solid 6-sigma detection of polarized dust in Arp 220's western nucleus, but the inferred field orientation may be beam-mixed between the two nuclei. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14770 v1 pith:UUCM322S submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.GA

David L Clements , Qizhou Zhang , K. Pattle , G. Petitpas , Y. Ding , J. Cairns This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dustpolarizationmagneticfieldsArp220ultraluminousinfraredgalaxymergerssubmillimeterinterferometrystarburstgalaxies
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

Arp 220, the nearest and brightest ultraluminous infrared galaxy, is the product of a merger between two gas-rich spirals, and its two nuclei are separated by only about one arcsecond. This paper reports submillimeter observations that resolve the two nuclei and detect, for the first time, polarized dust emission from the core of a ULIRG: a $6\sigma$ signal from the western nucleus with a polarization fraction of $2.7 \pm 0.35$ per cent. The inferred magnetic-field position angle, $102.1^\circ \pm 4.5^\circ$, lies between the major axis of the western molecular disk ($78^\circ$) and the line connecting the two nuclei ($125^\circ$), which the authors interpret as a pre-merger dynamo field beginning to be reordered by the gravitational interaction. Unlike the more evolved starbursts M82 and NGC 253, there is no sign that the field has been reordered by the outflow, suggesting that outflow-driven field reordering emerges only later in a merger's evolution. These observations establish that ordered, percent-level magnetic fields can exist in the innermost regions of merging galaxies, and they flag the polarized emission of dusty galaxies as a foreground that next-generation cosmic-microwave-background experiments may need to revisit.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is interferometric polarimetry with the Submillimeter Array at 340 GHz, using quarter-wave plates to convert incoming linear polarization into circular polarization and so obtain Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps with a synthesized beam of $0.77 \times 0.45$ arcseconds and an rms noise of 0.5 mJy in $Q$ and $U$. The sub-arcsecond beam separates the two nuclei, which are about one arcsecond apart, thereby avoiding the beam dilution that left the earlier 15-arcsecond SCUBA observations with only a 1.54 per cent upper limit. The polarization vectors, rotated by $90^\circ$ under the standard assumption that aspherical dust grains align with their long axes perpendicular to the magnetic field, yield the projected sky-plane magnetic-field orientation, and the ratio of polarized to total intensity gives the polarization fraction.

What would settle it

Re-observing Arp 220 with a resolution of about $0.1$ arcsecond (for example with ALMA) so that the western nucleus, eastern nucleus, and inter-nucleus region are separately measured would settle the interpretation: if the western disk alone yields a field angle closer to its $78^\circ$ major axis, or if the offset polarized peak is found to lie between the nuclei and to blend their signals, the inferred interaction-reordered field orientation would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a detection: polarized dust emission is clearly seen from the western nucleus of Arp 220 at $6\sigma$ significance, with a peak polarized flux of $2.7 \pm 0.45$ mJy and a beam-averaged polarization fraction of $2.7 \pm 0.35$ per cent. This is, the authors state, the first detection of dust polarization—and hence of magnetic fields—in the nuclear regions of an ultraluminous infrared galaxy. The electric-vector position angle at the polarized peak is $12.1^\circ \pm 4.5^\circ$, which translates to a magnetic-field position angle of $102.1^\circ \pm 4.5^\circ$ assuming the standard picture of magnetically aligned grains. Because this angle falls between the $78^\circ$ major axis of the western disk and the $124.7^\circ$ angle of the line joining the two nuclei, the authors hypothesize that a pre-interaction galactic dynamo field is being distorted by the interaction between the two nuclei. A marginal $2.6\sigma$ polarized signal is seen at the eastern nucleus, consistent with a similar polarization fraction there, and no correlation is found between the field direction and the western outflow on the scales observed.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the $6\sigma$ polarized peak, which is offset from the continuum peak of the western nucleus, traces the magnetic field of the western nucleus's disk even though the $0.77 \times 0.45$ arcsecond beam does not resolve that disk, the eastern nucleus, or the region between them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection holds, magnetic fields in ULIRG cores can be ordered at the percent level, meaning the merger has not yet randomized the pre-existing field.
  • The field angle between the disk axis and the nucleus-nucleus axis implies gravitational interaction between the two nuclei reorders the field earlier than the starburst outflow does.
  • The lack of outflow-aligned field places a rough constraint on the timescale for wind-driven field reordering, which must be longer than the $\sim 10^5$-year age of Arp 220's western outflow.
  • Polarized dust emission from ULIRGs should be re-included in estimates of microwave foregrounds, since the observed $2.7$ per cent fraction exceeds the $\sim 1.5$ per cent assumed from older limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If interaction-driven reordering is real, then a sample of ULIRGs at different merger stages should show the field angle progressively rotating from the disk axis toward the nucleus-nucleus axis—a trend a modest polarization survey could test.
  • The offset of the polarized peak from the western continuum peak hints that the polarized emission may trace a compressed inter-nucleus gas layer rather than the disk midplane itself; higher-resolution observations could distinguish these geometries.
  • Should the $\sim 2.7$ per cent polarization fraction be typical of ULIRGs, the integrated polarized emission of dusty star-forming galaxies could be a systematic foreground for B-mode polarization searches, one that grows at higher frequencies.
  • A specific extension of the no-outflow-reordering claim: on scales smaller than the $\sim 100$ pc outflow, the field should begin to bend toward the outflow axis, mirroring the M82 and NGC 253 pattern; this is observable with sub-arcsecond polarimetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports 345 GHz Submillimeter Array polarimetric observations of the nuclear region of Arp 220 with a 0.77x0.45 arcsecond synthesized beam. A polarized-flux peak of 2.7±0.45 mJy is detected at 6σ significance slightly offset from the western nucleus, together with a marginal 2.6σ signal near the eastern nucleus. The authors infer a polarization fraction of about 2.7% at the peak and a magnetic-field position angle of 102.1°±4.5° east of north, which they interpret as a pre-interaction dynamo field in the western disk being distorted by the ongoing merger, with no evidence for outflow-driven reordering. They claim this is the first detection of polarized dust emission from the nuclear region of a ULIRG.

Significance. If the geometric attribution is secure, this is an important result: it would be the first sub-arcsecond detection of dust polarization in a ULIRG core, with implications for magnetic fields in major mergers and for polarized foregrounds in CMB experiments. The detection statistics are straightforward and the calibration uses standard external sources (3C345, Neptune, Callisto), with no fitted model or circular parameter choice. The interpretation, however, rests on identifying the polarized peak with the western nucleus, and the current resolution and source structure leave that identification insecure. The reported field orientation is therefore the main point that needs strengthening before the physical conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Table 1] The 6σ polarized peak is not coincident with the western nucleus: the peak coordinates (15:34:57.25, +23:30:11.70) are offset from the western-nucleus position (15:34:57.22, +23:30:11.52), and the total intensity at the peak is 101±10 mJy rather than 188±18 mJy. The offset is roughly equal to the beam minor axis and about half the beam major axis, while Section 4 states that the disk and outflow are unresolved. Thus the polarized peak samples a beam-averaged region that cannot be unambiguously assigned to the western disk. The paper should either restrict the 6σ claim to 'a peak near the western nucleus' and separate the secure detection claim from the attribution, or perform a source-structure model in Q and U to justify the association.
  2. [Section 4] The inferred magnetic-field position angle at the peak, 102.1°±4.5°, lies between the western disk major axis (78°) and the line connecting the nuclei (124.7°). The paper interprets this as a dynamo field distorted by the interaction, but a beam-mixed two-source model with different EVPAs for the two nuclei and comparable fractional polarizations would naturally produce a displaced polarized peak with an intermediate apparent angle. The paper does not fit such a model to the Q and U visibilities, nor does it estimate how much contamination from the eastern nucleus is permitted by the data. This is load-bearing for the central magnetic-field-geometry interpretation, so a two-point-source fit or an explicit deconvolution test should be added.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract's statement that polarization is detected at 6σ 'associated with the brighter, western nucleus' is supported only by the offset peak. At the western-nucleus position, Table 1 lists a polarized flux of 2.0±0.45 mJy, which is about 4.4σ, and the eastern-nucleus value is 1.2±0.45 mJy (2.6σ). The paper should present the significances at the peak and at each nuclear position consistently and explain how the peak position relates to the nuclei; otherwise the wording overstates the association between the 6σ detection and the western nucleus.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] There is a typo in 'polarzsation' in the Introduction, and 'ULRG' appears in the Conclusions instead of 'ULIRG'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence '3C345 and Bl-Lac were used as time-dependent gain, and bandpass calibrators, respectively' is ambiguous; it should read something like '3C345 was used as the time-dependent gain calibrator and Bl-Lac as the bandpass calibrator.' Also, 'The one sσ rms noise' should be 'The 1σ rms noise.'
  3. [Section 4] The notation for polarization angle versus magnetic-field position angle is used interchangeably in places; the paper should state explicitly that the B-field position angle is the EVPA plus 90°, and use the notation consistently throughout.
  4. [Figure 2] The right panel shows vectors rotated by 90° to indicate the magnetic-field direction, but the caption does not define the vector scaling or provide a reference vector; adding a legend would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection is a direct Stokes Q/U measurement calibrated against external sources, and the magnetic-field interpretation uses independent literature values.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — a 6σ detection of polarized dust emission in Arp 220 at 345 GHz — is derived directly from calibrated Stokes Q and U images. The data reduction uses external calibrators (3C345 for leakage/gain and bandpass, Neptune and Callisto for flux), and the reported polarized flux, polarization fraction, and EVPA are measurements with quoted uncertainties, not outputs of a fitted model whose parameters were chosen to reproduce the detection. The magnetic-field interpretation compares the measured EVPA to the western disk major axis (78°, Sakamoto et al. 2017) and the nucleus-nucleus line (124.7°), both taken from independent literature; the observed angle 102.1° is not forced by either input. No parameter is fitted to the target data, no 'prediction' reduces to an input by construction, and the self-citations (e.g., Pattle et al. 2021 for M82, Clements et al. 2002 for the AGN classification) are contextual rather than load-bearing. The paper's own caveat that 'We do not resolve either the disc or the outflow in our observations' identifies a possible beam-mixing ambiguity in attributing the offset polarized peak to the western nucleus; that is a legitimate scientific robustness concern and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity. The first-detection claim is an external comparison to prior upper limits (Seiffert et al. 2007), not a self-referential construct.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a measurement paper, so the ledger contains no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on standard dust-alignment physics, the dust-dominated SED, and the reliability of the SMA polarimetric calibration, all drawn from prior literature rather than established in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Aspherical dust grains align with the magnetic field, so polarized dust emission traces the plane-of-sky field with the electric vector perpendicular to the field.
    Used in Sections 1 and 4 to convert the measured EVPA of 12.1 degrees into the inferred B-field angle of 102.1 degrees.
  • domain assumption At 331 to 363 GHz the observed continuum from Arp 220 is dominated by thermal dust emission, so the detected polarization is dust polarization.
    Relies on prior SED studies cited in Sections 1 and 2; the paper presents no spectral index or SED decomposition of its own.
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation and circular polarization conversion are negligible at 345 GHz, so the observed EVPA equals the intrinsic emission angle.
    Implicit in the comparison of the measured angle to disk geometry in Section 4; not explicitly justified in the text.
  • domain assumption The literature disk position angle (78 degrees E of N; Sakamoto et al. 2017; Barcos-Munoz et al. 2015) and the nucleus-nucleus line (124.7 degrees) accurately describe the western disk geometry.
    These external angles are the reference frame for the conclusion that the B-field is being reordered by the interaction.
  • domain assumption The instrumental polarization leakage calibration using 3C345 removes spurious polarization to a level comparable to the 0.5 mJy rms noise in Q and U.
    Assumed in Section 2; no leakage residual map or alternative calibrator cross-check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarized Dust Emission in Arp220: Magnetic Fields in the Core of an Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUCM322S

@misc{pith2026241214770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarized Dust Emission in Arp220: Magnetic Fields in the Core of an Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUCM322S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14770}
}
read the original abstract

Arp 220 is the prototypical Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxy (ULIRG), and one of the brightest objects in the extragalactic far-infrared sky. It is the result of a merger between two gas rich spiral galaxies which has triggered starbursting activity in the merger nuclear regions. Observations with the Submillimeter Array centred at a frequency of 345 GHz and with a synthesised beamsize of 0.77 x 0.45 arcseconds were used to search for polarized dust emission from the nuclear regions of Arp 220. Polarized dust emission was clearly detected at 6 sigma significance associated with the brighter, western nucleus, with a peak polarization fraction of 2.7 +/- 0.35 per cent somewhat offset from the western nucleus. A suggestive 2.6 sigma signal is seen from the fainter eastern nucleus. The dust emission polarization is oriented roughly perpendicular to the molecular disk in the western nucleus suggesting that the magnetic field responsible is orientated broadly in the plane of the disk, but may be being reordered by the interaction between the two nuclei. Unlike more evolved interacting systems, we see no indication that the magnetic field is being reordered by the outflow from the western nucleus. These observations are the first detection of dust polarization, and thus of magnetic fields, in the core of a ULIRG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rangwala et al. 2011), and hosts a massive starburst forming stars at a rate of ∼ 100 M⊙/yr (eg. Downes & Solomon 1998). This star formation is concentrated into two nuclei at its centre separated roughly east-west by ∼ 1 arcsecond corresponding to a physical distance of 300 pc at its redshift of 𝑧 = 0.018 (see eg. Sakamoto et al. 2009; Scoville, Yun, & Bryant 1997). Each nucleus is surrounded by a rotating gas disk… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Image showing the intensity of Arp 220 in the SMA continuum bands (colour) with polarization vectors overlaid (left). These are rotated by 90 degrees in the image to the right to show the direction of the magnetic field. Polarization is detected in the western nucleus at a peak significance of 6 𝜎. The beam is shown as a cross-hatched ellipse in the bottom left corner. The red ellipses represent the rotating molecul… view at source ↗

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. Accurate Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Faraday Rotation with Optimal Dispersion Measure Estimators

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Calibrated on MHD galaxy simulations, an EM-based power-law estimator converts Faraday rotation measures to magnetic field strengths with ~0.1 dex error.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056

    Ade P., Aguirre J., Ahmed Z., Aiola S., Ali A., Alonso D., Alvarez M. A., et al., 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  2. [2]

    P., Tollerud E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille T. P., Tollerud E. J., Greenfield P., Droettboom M., Bray E., Aldcroft T., et al., 2013, A&A, 558, A33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    M., Lim P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan A. M., Lim P. L., Earl N., Starkman N., Bradley L., Shupe D. L., et al., 2022, ApJ, 935, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    K., Evans A

    Barcos-Mu \ n oz L., Leroy A. K., Evans A. S., Privon G. C., Armus L., Condon J., Mazzarella J. M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 799, 10. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/10

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/10 2015

  5. [5]

    A., Sakamoto K., Mart \' n S., Leroy A

    Barcos-Mu \ n oz L., Aalto S., Thompson T. A., Sakamoto K., Mart \' n S., Leroy A. K., Privon G. C., Evans A. S., Kepley A., 2018, ApJL, 853, L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28d 2018

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0\_13

    Beck R., Wielebinski R., 2013, pss5.book, 5, 641. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0\_13

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 2013

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2102

    Bonavera L., Gonz \'a lez-Nuevo J., De Marco B., Arg \"u eso F., Toffolatti L., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 628. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2102

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2102 2017

  8. [8]

    S., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Beck R., Clark S

    Borlaff A. S., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Beck R., Clark S. E., Ntormousi E., Tassis K., Martin-Alvarez S., et al., 2023, ApJ, 952, 4. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd934

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd934 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    Brandenburg A., Ntormousi E., 2023, ARA&A, 61, 561. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Geach J

    Chen J., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Ivison R. J., Geach J. E., Dye S., Liu X., Bendo G., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2407.14596. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.14596

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    L., McDowell J

    Clements D. L., McDowell J. C., Shaked S., Baker A. C., Borne K., Colina L., Lamb S. A., et al., 2002, ApJ, 581, 974. doi:10.1086/344439

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Dunne L., Eales S., 2010, MNRAS, 403, 274

    Clements D. L., Dunne L., Eales S., 2010, MNRAS, 403, 274. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16064.x

    2010

  5. [13]

    L., Pearson C., Farrah D., Greenslade J., Bernard-Salas J., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso E., Afonso J., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2097

    Clements D. L., Pearson C., Farrah D., Greenslade J., Bernard-Salas J., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso E., Afonso J., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2097. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3227

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., 1998, ApJ, 507, 615

    Downes D., Solomon P. M., 1998, ApJ, 507, 615. doi:10.1086/306339

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077301

    Downes D., Eckart A., 2007, A&A, 468, L57. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077301

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Doherty M

    Geach J. E., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Doherty M. J., Chen J., Ivison R. J., Bendo G. J., Dye S., et al., 2023, Natur, 621, 483. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06346-4

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Holland W

    Greaves J. S., Holland W. S., 2002, AIPC, 609, 267. doi:10.1063/1.1471859

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    Greve A., Neininger N., Tarchi A., Sievers A., 2000, A&A, 364, 409, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0010116

    2000 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ho P. T. P., Moran J. M., Lo K. Y., 2004, ApJL, 616, L1. doi:10.1086/423245

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Robson E

    Holland W. S., Robson E. I., Gear W. K., Cunningham C. R., Lightfoot J. F., Jenness T., Ivison R. J., et al., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 659. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02111.x

    1999

  13. [21]

    J., Dowell C

    Jones T. J., Dowell C. D., Lopez Rodriguez E., Zweibel E. G., Berthoud M., Chuss D. T., Goldsmith P. F., et al., 2019, ApJL, 870, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf8b9

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Kim J.-A., Dowell C

    Jones T. J., Kim J.-A., Dowell C. D., Morris M. R., Pineda J. L., Benford D. J., Berthoud M., et al., 2020, AJ, 160, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abada8

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937147

    Lagache G., B \'e thermin M., Montier L., Serra P., Tucci M., 2020, A&A, 642, A232. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937147

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2003.09.037

    Lazarian A., Finkbeiner D., 2003, NewAR, 47, 1107. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2003.09.037

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Nguyen D

    Lopez S., Lopez L. A., Nguyen D. D., Thompson T. A., Mathur S., Bolatto A. D., Vulic N., et al., 2023, ApJ, 942, 108. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca65e

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Jones T

    Lopez-Rodriguez E., Dowell C. D., Jones T. J., Harper D. A., Berthoud M., Chuss D., Dale D. A., et al., 2020, ApJ, 888, 66. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5849

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Lopez-Rodriguez E., 2023, ApJ, 953, 113, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace110

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Beck R., Reach W

    Lopez-Rodriguez E., Borlaff A. S., Beck R., Reach W. T., Mao S. A., Ntormousi E., Tassis K., et al., 2023, ApJL, 942, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaaa2

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Rao R., 2008, SPIE, 7020, 70202B

    Marrone D. P., Rao R., 2008, SPIE, 7020, 70202B. doi:10.1117/12.788677

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Pattle K., Gear W., Redman M., Smith M. W. L., Greaves J., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 684. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1300

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038328

    Perna M., Arribas S., Catal \'a n-Torrecilla C., Colina L., Bellocchi E., Fluetsch A., Maiolino R., et al., 2020, A&A, 643, A139. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038328

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Glenn J., Wilson C

    Rangwala N., Maloney P. R., Glenn J., Wilson C. D., Rykala A., Isaak K., Baes M., et al., 2011, ApJ, 743, 94. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/94

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Z., Yun M

    Sakamoto K., Scoville N. Z., Yun M. S., Crosas M., Genzel R., Tacconi L. J., 1999, ApJ, 514, 68. doi:10.1086/306951

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Black J

    Sakamoto K., Aalto S., Wilner D. J., Black J. H., Conway J. E., Costagliola F., Peck A. B., et al., 2009, ApJL, 700, L104. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L104

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Harada N., Mart \' n S., et al., 2017, ApJ, 849, 14

    Sakamoto K., Aalto S., Barcos-Mu \ n oz L., Costagliola F., Evans A. S., Harada N., Mart \' n S., et al., 2017, ApJ, 849, 14. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4b

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    B., Mirabel I

    Sanders D. B., Mirabel I. F., 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.749

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Teuben P

    Sault R. J., Teuben P. J., Wright M. C. H., 1995, ASPC, 77, 433. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Z., Yun M

    Scoville N. Z., Yun M. S., Bryant P. M., 1997, ApJ, 484, 702. doi:10.1086/304368

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11186.x

    Seiffert M., Borys C., Scott D., Halpern M., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11186.x

    2007

  32. [40]

    L., Bland-Hawthorn J., 1998, ApJ, 493, 129, doi:10.1086/305108

    Shopbell P. L., Bland-Hawthorn J., 1998, ApJ, 493, 129, doi:10.1086/305108

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/61.2.237

    Tsai A.-L., Matsushita S., Nakanishi K., Kohno K., Kawabe R., Inui T., Matsumoto H., et al., 2009, PASJ, 61, 237. doi:10.1093/pasj/61.2.237

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Leroy A

    Walter F., Bolatto A. D., Leroy A. K., Veilleux S., Warren S. R., Hodge J., Levy R. C., et al., 2017, ApJ, 835, 265. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/265

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1425

    Whittingham J., Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., 2021, MNRAS, 506, 229. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1425

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2680

    Whittingham J., Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., 2023, MNRAS, 526, 224. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2680

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.