Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

A Large Molecular Gas Reservoir in the Protocluster SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,{=}\,4.3$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Deep low-resolution maps reveal a diffuse molecular gas reservoir in SPT2349-56 that high-resolution ALMA misses.

desk verdict The 75% CO(4-3) excess in SPT2349-56 is real and well-checked, but the claim that it must be extended diffuse gas outruns the luminosity-function constraint used to exclude faint discrete emitters. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17980 v4 pith:KZJTJ2FX submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.GA

Dazhi Zhou , Scott C. Chapman , Nikolaus Sulzenauer , Ryley Hill , Manuel Aravena , Pablo Araya-Araya , Jared Cathey , Daniel P. Marrone
show 8 more authors
Kedar A. Phadke Cassie Reuter Manuel Solimano Justin S. Spilker Joaquin D. Vieira David Vizgan George C. P. Wang Axel Weiss
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords submillimeterastronomygalaxyevolutionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesmoleculargasCO(4-3)emissionprotoclusterscircumgalacticmediumintracluster
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

Deep, low-resolution radio observations of the most intensely star-forming protocluster core known at $z=4.3$ find that its CO(4-3) emission is 75% brighter than the sum of all galaxies individually detected in higher-resolution ALMA data, and [C ii] emission shows an even larger excess. The paper argues that this missing flux is not explained by faint undetected galaxies but by spatially extended, low-surface-brightness molecular gas in the circumgalactic medium or a pre-heated proto-intracluster medium. If true, high-resolution interferometric surveys systematically undercount the gas available to fuel star formation in dense early-universe environments. This extended reservoir could extend the gas consumption timescale to more than 400 Myr, easing the puzzle of how more than ten ultraluminous galaxies are all active at once, and may represent the cold beginnings of the intracluster medium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is between low-resolution and high-resolution views of the same gas. A single ACA 7-m pointing captures the full spatial extent of CO(4-3) and dust emission, while co-added ALMA 12-m spectra of individually detected galaxies capture only what the high-resolution array can see; re-imaging the ALMA data with a 10-arcsec taper, a processing step that down-weights long baselines to recover extended emission, acts as an intermediate cross-check. Three tracers are used in parallel, CO(4-3), 3.2 mm dust continuum, and [C ii], with visibility-plane amplitude comparisons to demonstrate that calibration differences do not produce the excess. The comparison isolates flux on angular scales that the 1-arcsecond ALMA observations resolve out, revealing a phase with high gas-to-dust ratio and low surface brightness that cannot belong to the galaxies' own ISM.

What would settle it

A very deep ACA-plus-total-power observation of the same field that reaches about 0.03 Jy km/s per synthesised beam would resolve the missing CO(4-3) into either discrete point sources or smooth extended emission: finding more than about 100 compact emitters would refute the extended-gas claim, while smooth diffuse emission would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using roughly 30 hours of Atacama Compact Array (ACA) 7-m observations, the paper measures the CO(4-3) line and 3.2 mm continuum over the whole SPT2349-56 core with a roughly 21-by-12 arcsecond beam and compares the integrated line strength with the co-added spectra of all galaxies individually detected in high-resolution ALMA 12-m data. The ACA core spectrum contains 6.65 ± 0.30 Jy km/s, 75% more than the 3.79 ± 0.12 Jy km/s recovered by summing the 12-m detections, and the same excess appears when the ALMA data are re-imaged with a 10-arcsec taper and in the APEX [C ii] spectrum, which is 135% brighter than the summed ALMA emission. The 3.2 mm dust continuum does not show a corresponding excess, and visibility-plane amplitudes agree between the arrays, so the paper rules out flux calibration as the cause. It argues that no more than about 100 faint emitters below the detection threshold can account for the missing CO, because the faint end of the line luminosity function would need to be steeper than previous data allow. The conclusion is that high-resolution ALMA resolves out extended low-surface-brightness molecular gas, likely in the circumgalactic medium or a cold proto-intracluster medium, and that, if this reservoir feeds star formation, the core's depletion timescale is larger than 400 Myr.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the number of very faint, small galaxies below ALMA's detection limit being as small as earlier surveys suggest; if there are many more than about 100 of them, the excess could be galaxies rather than diffuse gas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The molecular gas mass of the core derived from CO(4-3) rises to about 1.9 trillion solar masses, making earlier high-resolution estimates lower limits.
  • The gas-depletion timescale of the core becomes at least 400 Myr, so the simultaneous ULIRG activity no longer requires a tightly synchronized, short-lived burst.
  • High-resolution ALMA fluxes of individual galaxies in similar systems should be treated as lower limits, and extended emission can be partially recovered by heavy uv-tapering, accurate CLEAN masks, or compact-array and total-power observations.
  • The excess emission may represent the cold, pre-virialized phase of the intracluster medium, meaning the ICM begins forming before the cluster becomes a hot, relaxed structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: Detecting the same excess in CO(1-0), which is less dependent on excitation conditions than CO(4-3), would directly test whether the diffuse gas is truly cold and massive rather than warm and lower-density.
  • Editorial extension: Applying the same ACA-versus-high-resolution comparison to other extreme protoclusters would show whether this hidden reservoir is a general feature of overdense cores or special to SPT2349-56.
  • Editorial extension: The lack of a dust excess predicts a very high gas-to-dust ratio for the diffuse phase; a deep 850-micron continuum map of the same region could confirm or contradict that prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents deep Atacama Compact Array (ACA) Band-3 observations of the protocluster SPT2349-56 at z=4.3, measuring CO(4-3) and 3.2 mm dust continuum. The authors report a 75% excess in the velocity-integrated CO(4-3) flux measured with the low-resolution ACA 7-m array relative to the sum of individual galaxies detected in higher-resolution ALMA 12-m data, a result also seen when the ALMA data are tapered to 10 arcsec, and a 135% excess in [CII] emission from an archival APEX/FLASH spectrum relative to the co-added ALMA [CII] spectra. The 3.2 mm continuum does not show a significant excess. The authors argue that the missing CO and [CII] flux is unlikely to be due to undetected faint galaxies, and instead interpret it as spatially extended, low-surface-brightness molecular gas in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) or a pre-heated proto-intracluster medium (proto-ICM). They further use this excess to revise the gas depletion timescale to >400 Myr, reducing the need for synchronized ULIRG activity.

Significance. The empirical result is important: if confirmed, it demonstrates that high-resolution ALMA observations of protocluster cores can miss a substantial fraction (tens of percent) of the total line emission, with direct consequences for gas mass estimates and for our understanding of how extreme starbursts in protoclusters are sustained. The paper's strengths include the use of two independent low-resolution estimators (ACA 7-m and tapered ALMA), a single-dish [CII] spectrum from APEX, and a visibility-plane comparison that argues against a simple amplitude-calibration offset. The authors also explicitly acknowledge that their gas masses are lower limits and discuss possible systematic effects. However, the central astrophysical interpretation—that the missing flux is diffuse gas rather than a population of faint discrete sources—rests on a single, under-quantified argument, which is the load-bearing point for the CGM/proto-ICM conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, second paragraph] The claim that the missing CO(4-3) flux cannot be attributed to faint unresolved emitters is not quantitatively supported. The text states that 'additional >100 faint line emitters with F_CO(4-3) ≳ 0.03 Jy km/s would be required' and that this 'cannot be accommodated by the current luminosity function in SPT2349-56, where the flat faint end is reasonably well constrained (Hill et al. 2020).' However, no integral of the luminosity function is presented, and the cited Hill et al. (2020) constraint is based on [CII]-selected emitters at S/N ≥ 6.2 in high-resolution ALMA data. The conversion from the [CII] luminosity function to a CO(4-3) luminosity function is not shown, and the possibility of a population of CO-bright but [CII]-faint sources is not addressed. Because this argument is the only quantitative basis for excluding the faint-source alternative, please provide a direct estimate of the expected contribution of sources below the ALMA detection threshold, including the effect of the CO/[CII] ratio uncertainty, or state the faint-end slope of the CO(4-3) luminosity function that would be required to explain the excess.
  2. [Section 4, depletion timescale paragraph] The derived depletion timescale of >400 Myr and the corresponding relaxation of the synchronization requirement assume that the excess gas is a diffuse reservoir that can be accreted by the protocluster galaxies. If the excess instead originates from a population of faint, unresolved galaxies, the gas is already locked in galaxies and the reservoir interpretation—and the depletion argument—would not apply. The paper should either make this dependence explicit by presenting the depletion time as conditional on the diffuse-gas interpretation, or strengthen the evidence that the excess is not in discrete sources.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 3.1] The visibility-plane comparison (Fig. 5) shows that the ACA and ALMA amplitudes are consistent at similar uv-distances, but the ACA data extend to shorter uv-distances than the ALMA 12-m data, and the excess appears at large angular scales (short uv). The paper interprets this as extended, low-surface-brightness gas, but a population of faint point sources distributed over the ~30 arcsec aperture would also contribute to the short-spacing flux. To distinguish these cases, the authors should model the uv-amplitude profile with both a diffuse component and a population of point sources, or use a stacking analysis of the faint [CII] emitters to estimate their total CO(4-3) contribution. As it stands, the evidence is consistent with extended gas but does not uniquely require it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The entry '105.7.0 ±9.8' in the ALMA row appears to contain a typo; it should likely be '105.7 ±9.8' or '105.0 ±9.8'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'Considering ≈ 200 dumps are included in ∼ 20 hours of observations (including calibrations), some effective beam size uncertainty may be introduced' is unclear; please clarify what 'dumps' refers to and how the number of dumps affects the beam size uncertainty.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'red curves' for the best-fit Gaussian profiles, but the figure description in the text indicates that the ACA spectrum is blue and the ALMA spectrum is red; please ensure the color references are consistent and unambiguous.
  4. [Section 3.1] The velocity integration range for the core is [−1373 km/s, 1429 km/s] while that for N1 is [−349 km/s, 1429 km/s]; the asymmetry and the different ranges are not fully explained, and a brief justification would help the reader trust the integrated fluxes.
  5. [Section 4, first paragraph] The sentence 'A missing population of faint emitters might contribute a considerable amount of [CII] and CO(4–3) emission (Sulzenauer et al. in prep)' is in tension with the later dismissal of that possibility; even though the later paragraph attempts to address it, the paper would benefit from a more explicit reconciliation of these statements, particularly given that Sulzenauer et al. is cited as in-preparation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed CO(4-3) and [CII] excesses are direct comparisons of independent flux measurements; literature conversion factors and the Hill et al. (2020) luminosity-function constraint are external inputs, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The central empirical result is a direct comparison of integrated fluxes from independent instruments: ACA 7-m, tapered ALMA, and ALMA 12-m for CO(4-3), plus APEX/FLASH versus ALMA for [CII], all tabulated in Tables 1 and 3. No parameter is fitted to the target excess and then re-presented as a prediction; the residual is simply the difference between independently calibrated measurements. The gas-mass estimates use literature conversion factors (r41, alpha_CO, alpha_CII, beta), which the paper explicitly labels as assumptions and as yielding lower limits; changing the calibration changes the derived masses but not the existence or magnitude of the flux excess. The only load-bearing external input for the interpretation is the Hill et al. (2020) luminosity-function constraint used to argue that faint discrete emitters cannot account for the missing flux. That constraint is a previously published, externally falsifiable observational result, not a definitional or fitted input of the present paper, and the authors themselves acknowledge the possibility of a missing faint population and cite ongoing work on faint emitters and streamers. The derivation chain therefore does not reduce to its own inputs, and the paper's own caveats prevent the interpretation from being circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central flux-excess claim rests on two low-resolution measurements (ACA and tapered ALMA) and an APEX spectrum; it is not derived from a model. The free parameters listed are observer choices (aperture, velocity range) and a data-derived scaling factor. The axioms are the completeness of the prior ALMA source catalog, the luminosity-function constraint, the adopted conversion factors, and the beam/calibration assumptions. No new entities are postulated; the proto-ICM interpretation uses an existing concept.

free parameters (3)
  • ACA core CO(4-3) aperture size = 30'' x 17'' elliptical aperture
    Chosen by curve-of-growth analysis to maximize total line strength in the core (Section 3.1); affects the reported ACA flux but is cross-checked with 10'' tapered ALMA.
  • CO(4-3) velocity integration range = [-1373, 1429] km/s (core); [-349, 1429] km/s (N1)
    Set to +/-3 sigma of a fitted Gaussian line profile (Section 3.1); standard but observer-chosen.
  • fcor scaling factor for undetected 3.2mm sources = 52.0 +/- 4.5 (S850/S3.2mm ratio)
    Average flux ratio from seven detected sources used to estimate continuum for twelve undetected members (Table 2); affects the dust continuum comparison, not the CO excess.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ALMA source catalog and redshift identifications from Hill et al. (2020) are complete and correct.
    The baseline 'sum of individually detected sources' is built from this catalog; any missed or misidentified source changes the quoted excess (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The faint end of the CO(4-3) luminosity function in SPT2349-56 is no steeper than the constraint from Hill et al. (2020).
    Used to argue that >100 faint emitters below the ALMA threshold cannot explain the excess (Section 4); if the faint end is steeper for extended sources, the diffuse-gas interpretation weakens.
  • domain assumption The adopted conversion factors (alpha_CO = 3.8, r41 = 0.6, alpha_CII = 30, beta = 2) apply to the extended low-surface-brightness gas.
    These translate observed line fluxes into gas masses and the >400 Myr depletion time (Sections 3.1-3.3); the authors note the extended gas may have higher alpha_CO and lower r41, which would only increase the mass estimates.
  • domain assumption The APEX [CII] beam is well described by a 16.5'' FWHM Gaussian for source attenuation corrections.
    Used to correct ALMA [CII] spectra for comparison (Section 3.3); a 20'' beam changes the integrated ALMA flux by about 9%.
  • domain assumption ACA and ALMA absolute flux calibrations are consistent to within the quoted random errors.
    Visibility amplitudes agree at overlapping uv-distances (Appendix A), but the unique short-spacing data of ACA are not independently cross-calibrated; the tapered ALMA result provides a partial check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Large Molecular Gas Reservoir in the Protocluster SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,{=}\,4.3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZJTJ2FX

@misc{pith2026241217980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Large Molecular Gas Reservoir in the Protocluster SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,=\,4.3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZJTJ2FX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17980}
}
abstract

We present Atacama Compact Array (ACA) Band-3 observations of the protocluster SPT2349$-$56, an extreme system hosting ${\gtrsim}\,12$ submillimeter galaxies (SMGs) at $z\,{=}\,4.3$, to study its integrated molecular gas content via CO(4-3) and long-wavelength dust continuum. The $\sim$30-hour integration represents one of the longest exposures yet taken on a single pointing with the ACA 7-m. The low-resolution ACA data ($21.0''\,{\times}\,12.2''$) reveal a 75% excess CO(4-3) flux compared to the sum of individual sources detected in higher-resolution Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) data ($1.0''\,{\times}\,0.8''$). Our work also reveals a similar result by tapering the ALMA data to $10''$. In contrast, the 3.2mm dust continuum shows little discrepancy between ACA and ALMA. A single-dish [CII] spectrum obtained by APEX/FLASH supports the ACA CO(4-3) result, revealing a large excess in [CII] emission relative to ALMA. The missing flux is unlikely due to undetected faint sources but instead suggests that high-resolution ALMA observations might miss extended and low-surface-brightness gas. Such emission could originate from the circum-galactic medium (CGM) or the pre-heated proto-intracluster medium (proto-ICM). If this molecular gas reservoir replenishes the star formation fuel, the overall depletion timescale will exceed 400Myr, reducing the requirement for the simultaneous SMG activity in SPT2349$-$56. Our results highlight the role of an extended gas reservoir in sustaining a high star formation rate (SFR) in SPT2349$-$56, and potentially establishing the ICM during the transition phase to a mature cluster.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17980 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ACA continuum map of the protocluster SPT2349−56 with moment-0 contours of CO(4–3) in the velocity window [−1373 km/s, 1429 km/s] before primary-beam correction. The white solid contours are [3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21]× the rms level of the CO emission from ACA observations. The dashed contours are −2× the rms level. The white dotted contours indicate [0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9]× the primary beam response from the continuum … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [C ii] spectrum from APEX FLASH observations (blue) compared to the scaled and co-added ALMA spectra of all individually-detected protocluster members within the APEX beam (red). The difference is shown in black. For the purpose of this plot, we slightly smoothed the APEX spectrum with a low-pass Savitzky-Golay filter with a poly￾nomial order of one to suppress the high-frequency noise. Since we use ± 800 km/s for t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ACA 7-m spectra of CO(4–3) of the southern core and ‘N1’ (blue). The red curves are the best-fit Gaussian profiles for determining the velocity ranges of the moment-0 maps, which are also indicated as the shaded regions. The ALMA 12-m results (obtained by co-adding all individually￾detected galaxies) are shown in red, and the differences be￾tween the two measurements are shown in black for compari￾son. Compared to t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: uv-coverage of ACA (blue) and ALMA (red) observations. Right: ACA CO(4–3) moment-0 map overlaid with tapered ALMA CO(4–3) moment-0 contours. Details and line styles are similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Amplitudes of CO(4–3) and 3.2 mm dust continuum of the southern core from the ALMA (red) and ACA (blue) observations in the visibility plane. The MRS of the ALMA 12-m observations is shown as black dashed lines. Visibilities show a good agreement at similar uv distance…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CO(4–3) spectra of core and ‘N1’ from the tapered ALMA (red) compared to untapered ALMA (grey) and ACA (blue) data (top panels). The extra fluxes from the low-resolution results are plotted in the bottom panels. CO(4–3) excess is also shown in tapered ALMA data cube […

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554

    Alberts, S., & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554

    doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 683, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245785

    Apostolovski, Y., Aravena, M., Anguita, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245785

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245785 2024

  3. [3]

    Modelling the multi-wavelength detection of protoclusters. I: An excess of submillimetre galaxies in protocluster cores

    Araya-Araya, P., Cochrane, R. K., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00062, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00062 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00062 2024

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 642, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038396

    Bassini, L., Rasia, E., Borgani, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038396

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038396 2020

  5. [5]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    W., Chapman, S

    Blain, A. W., Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. 2004, ApJ, 611, 725, doi: 10.1086/422353

    doi:10.1086/422353 2004

  7. [7]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  8. [8]

    L., Riechers, D., Scoville, N

    Capak, P. L., Riechers, D., Scoville, N. Z., et al. 2011, Nature, 470, 233, doi: 10.1038/nature09681

    doi:10.1038/nature09681 2011

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Walter, F

    Carilli, C. L., & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140953

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Ade, P

    Carlstrom, J. E., Ade, P. A. R., Aird, K. A., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 568, doi: 10.1086/659879 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Casey, C. M. 2016, ApJ, 824, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/36

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Hill, R., Aravena, M., et al

    Chapman, S. C., Hill, R., Aravena, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b77

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    D., et al

    Chen, Z., Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3128

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R. A., Gebhardt, K., & Henriques, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e7b

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, A&A, 654, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    Cicone, C., Mainieri, V., Circosta, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141611

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Claude, S., Jiang, F., Niranjanan, P., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7020, Millimeter and Submillimeter Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. W. D. Duncan, W. S. Holland, S. Withington, & J. Zmui...

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Teague, R., et al

    Czekala, I., Loomis, R. A., Teague, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1430

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, A&A, 662, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142871 13

    Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Venemans, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142871 13

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba89

    Dong, C., Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Horowitz, B., & Momose, R. 2023, ApJL, 945, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba89

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    1980 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Dunne, L., Maddox, S. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., Ivison, R. J., & Gomez, H. L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2098

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Lehnert, M. D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45f4

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Villar-Mart ´ ın, M., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1128, doi: 10.1126/science.aag0512

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Dannerbauer, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly034

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Yoon, I., et al. 2023a, Science, 379, 1323, doi: 10.1126/science.abh2150

    doi

  20. [28]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Lebowitz, S., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 952, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde53 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Oh, S. P. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 131, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 Frias Castillo...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2526

    Fukushima, K., Nagamine, K., & Shimizu, I. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2526

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 689, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449642

    Ghodsi, L., Zhou, J., Andreani, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449642

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, A&A, 490, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810442

    Giard, M., Montier, L., Pointecouteau, E., & Simmat, E. 2008, A&A, 490, 547, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810442

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    C., B´ ethermin, M., et al

    Ginolfi, M., Jones, G. C., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936872

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4, v0.4.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    Ginsburg, A., Koch, E., Robitaille, T., et al. 2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4, v0.4.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    D., et al

    Gullberg, B., De Breuck, C., Vieira, J. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv372

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Bennett, J

    Heintz, K. E., Bennett, J. S., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06287

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Graf, U. U. 2006, A&A, 454, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065413

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Scott, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    A., et al

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3539

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    A., & da Cunha, E

    Hodge, J. A., & da Cunha, E. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200556, doi: 10.1098/rsos.200556

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03790

    Hughes, C., Hill, R., Chapman, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03790

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1802

    Dunne, L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1802

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Ivison, R. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., Smail, I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1913, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18028.x

    2011

  37. [45]

    C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al

    Jones, G. C., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad985

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec84

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Li, J., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac390d

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3693

    Lim, S., Scott, D., Babul, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3693

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1790

    Lim, S., Tacchella, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1790

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, A&A, 633, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    B., Chapman, S

    Miller, T. B., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 469, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Crawford, T

    Mocanu, L. M., Crawford, T. M., Vieira, J. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/61 Montoya Arroyave, I., Cicone, C., Andreani, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348292

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    P., Walter, F., et al

    Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc33f

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Dunne, L., et al

    Oteo, I., Ivison, R. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1f1

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton Series in Physics)

    1980

  51. [59]

    J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    2005, in SF2A-2005: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed

    Pety, J. 2005, in SF2A-2005: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Casoli, T. Contini, J. M. Hameury, & L. Pagani, 721

    2005

  53. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, ApJ, 950, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb91

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.06672, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.06672 14

    Rennehan, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.06672, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.06672 14

    2024 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    C., et al

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa541

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Spilker, J

    Reuter, C., Vieira, J. D., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb599

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    Rosolowsky, E., & Leroy, A. 2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Chapman, S

    Rotermund, K. M., Chapman, S. C., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab103

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    T., Frias Castillo, M., et al

    Rybak, M., Jansen, J. T., Frias Castillo, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06474. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06474

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a0

    Scoville, N., Lee, N., Vanden Bout, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a0

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1bc

    Scoville, N., Faisst, A., Weaver, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1bc

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, A&A, 689, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449192

    Solimano, M., Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, J., Aravena, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449192

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    M., & Vanden Bout, P

    Solomon, P. M., & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    2005 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S., Marrone, D

    Spilker, J. S., Marrone, D. P., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/149

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Weiss, A., Vieira, J

    Strandet, M. L., Weiss, A., Vieira, J. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 80, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/80

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    A., & Zeldovich, I

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, I. B. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 537, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.002541

    1980

  68. [76]

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

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, uvplot: Interferometric visibilities plotter, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1911.002

    Tazzari, M. 2019, uvplot: Interferometric visibilities plotter, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1911.002

    2019

  70. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00103

    Tevlin, L., Berlok, T., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00103

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    A., & Heckman, T

    Thompson, T. A., & Heckman, T. M. 2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 62, 529, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-041224-011924

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13823, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13823

    Venkateshwaran, A., Weiss, A., Sulzenauer, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13823, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13823

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    D., Crawford, T

    Vieira, J. D., Crawford, T. M., Switzer, E. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 763, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/763

    2010 doi

  75. [83]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    N., Comastri, A., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Comastri, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450225

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    2002, ApJL, 580, L21, doi: 10.1086/345287

    Walter, F., Weiss, A., & Scoville, N. 2002, ApJL, 580, L21, doi: 10.1086/345287

    2002 doi

  78. [86]

    C., Chapman, S

    Wang, G. C., Chapman, S. C., Sulzenauer, N., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16637

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Wang, G. C. P., Hill, R., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2800

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56 Weiß, A., Neininger, N., H¨ uttemeister, S., & Klein, U

    Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/56 Weiß, A., Neininger, N., H¨ uttemeister, S., & Klein, U. 2001, A&A, 365, 571, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000145 Weiß, A., De Breuck, C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 88, doi: 10....

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2394

    Zanella, A., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2394

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    R., Gullberg, B., et al

    Zhou, D., Greve, T. R., Gullberg, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348500

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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