Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Galactic structure dependence of cloud-cloud collisions driven star formation in the barred galaxy NGC 3627

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

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

Pith's one-line read In the barred galaxy NGC 3627, the stars formed per cloud-cloud collision are about six times fewer in the bar than at the bar-end, and this tracks faster collisions and lighter clouds in the bar.

desk verdict A careful single-galaxy measurement of per-collision star formation that supports the CCC scenario qualitatively, with the expected caveat that vcol is a statistical proxy and the bar's value may be partly shear-inflated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06102 v1 pith:FJKIGKCJ submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.GA

Fumiya Maeda , Kouji Ohta , Fumi Egusa , Yusuke Fujimoto , Masato I.N. Kobayashi , Shin Inoue , Asao Habe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cloud-cloudcollisionsgiantmolecularcloudsstarformationefficiencybarredgalaxyNGC3627gaskinematicsALMACO(2-1)H-alpha
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 tries to show that the efficiency of star formation triggered by cloud-cloud collisions (CCCs) varies with galactic structure in the barred galaxy NGC 3627, and that this variation explains the kpc-scale star formation efficiency pattern seen there. The authors measure the collision velocity of giant molecular clouds from their line-of-sight velocity dispersion inside 500 pc apertures, then combine ALMA CO(2-1) cloud catalogs with attenuation-corrected H$\alpha$ maps to compute the stellar mass per collision ($m^{\star}_{\rm CCC}$) and the star formation efficiency per collision ($\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$). They find medians of $10^{3.84}\,M_\odot$ and $0.18\%$ in the bar versus $10^{4.89}\,M_\odot$ and $1.10\%$ at the bar-end, with disk values in between. If right, this supports the scenario that structure-dependent collision properties, faster cloud encounters in the bar and more massive, denser clouds at the bar-end, set the observed order-of-magnitude star formation efficiency differences within a disk galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the aperture-level CCC star formation model, $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} = \epsilon f_{\rm sf}\nu_{\rm CCC}n_{\rm GMC}\bar{M}_{\rm GMC}$, together with the geometric estimate $v_{\rm col} = (\sqrt{2}/\sin i) \times$ the rms line-of-sight GMC velocity inside a hexagonal 500 pc aperture, assuming random two-dimensional cloud motions. From these the paper builds the collision frequency $\nu_{\rm CCC} = 2\bar{R}_{\rm GMC}n_{\rm GMC}v_{\rm col}$, the number of collisions per time $N_{\rm CCC}=\nu_{\rm CCC}N_{\rm GMC}$, the stellar mass per collision $m^{\star}_{\rm CCC}=\Sigma_{\rm SFR}/(\nu_{\rm CCC}n_{\rm GMC})$, and the efficiency per collision $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}=m^{\star}_{\rm CCC}/\bar{M}_{\rm GMC}=t_{\rm CCC}/t_{\rm dep}$. The threshold $N_{\rm CCC}\ge 0.1\,{\rm Myr}^{-1}$ is what selects apertures as CCC-dominated, and the $v_{\rm col}$ estimate is what ties galactic structure to star formation.

What would settle it

Subtract a smooth rotation plus bar-streaming velocity field from the GMC line-of-sight velocities inside each 500 pc aperture and recompute the residual dispersion; if the bar's residual dispersion drops to the disk level, then the reported high collision velocity in the bar is an artifact of ordered motion rather than random collisions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, apertures in NGC 3627 where CCC-driven star formation dominates show a clear structural ordering. Median per-collision stellar mass is lowest in the bar ($10^{3.84}\,M_\odot$), highest at the bar-end ($10^{4.89}\,M_\odot$), and intermediate in the disk ($10^{4.28}\,M_\odot$); per-collision star formation efficiency follows the same order, with $0.18\%$, $1.10\%$, and $0.75\%$, respectively. Fits give $m^{\star}_{\rm CCC} \propto v_{\rm col}^{-1.31}\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm GMC}^{1.00}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm CCC} \propto v_{\rm col}^{-1.47}\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm GMC}^{0.31}$, with the bar occupying the high-$v_{\rm col}$, lower-$\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm GMC}$ part of the parameter space and the bar-end the opposite. The authors conclude that these structural differences in collision velocity and GMC mass or surface density produce the suppressed star formation in the bar and the enhanced star formation at the bar-end.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spread in line-of-sight GMC velocities inside each 500 pc aperture is dominated by random two-dimensional cloud motions, so the adopted formula converts that spread into a true collision velocity; if organized streaming or shear dominates, the bar's higher collision velocity and the structural ranking built on it would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, the low kpc-scale star formation efficiency of bars is not only a matter of tidal disruption; it is partly set by the higher collision velocities that the bar potential imposes on molecular clouds.
  • The bar-end's elevated star formation follows from its heavier, denser GMC population, which supplies more gas and a longer accretion phase for cores forming in collisions.
  • The observed anti-correlation between CO velocity width and star formation efficiency on kpc scales can be reinterpreted as the signature of per-collision efficiency falling as collision velocity rises.
  • Applied to other strongly barred galaxies, the same method should reproduce the ordering bar $<$ disk $<$ bar-end if CCC properties are the controlling variable.
  • The extracted CCC-dominated apertures account for roughly 80 percent of the total star formation in NGC 3627 outside the center, suggesting that CCC-driven star formation can dominate in a high gas surface density barred galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $v_{\rm col}$ estimate mixes random cloud motions with any organized streaming inside the 500 pc aperture; a cleaner separation of shear from random dispersion would tell whether the bar's high $v_{\rm col}$ is truly collisional or partly kinematic.
  • The scalings imply a sharp, separable prediction: per-collision efficiency is controlled mainly by collision speed, while cloud mass mainly sets the mass scale of the stars formed, so future GMC-scale CO(1-0) surveys should see $m^{\star}_{\rm CCC}$ scale nearly linearly with cloud mass while $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$ stays nearly mass-independent.
  • Bar strength, traced by stellar surface density and non-circular motions, could serve as a predictor of CCC-driven star formation efficiency, since NGC 3627's stronger bar shows higher collision velocities than the weaker bar of NGC 1300.
  • A direct test would compare the observed per-collision efficiencies with the core mass functions predicted by sub-parsec collision simulations at matched $v_{\rm col}$ and cloud mass, expecting steeper and more truncated core mass functions in the bar.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper uses ALMA CO(2-1) data at 60 pc resolution and VLT MUSE H-alpha data to estimate cloud-cloud collision (CCC) properties in the barred galaxy NGC 3627. The authors identify GMCs with PYCPROPS, place 500 pc hexagonal apertures, and estimate a collision velocity vcol from the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of GMCs under the assumption of random two-dimensional motion. They then compute the collision frequency nu_CCC, the stellar mass formed per collision m*_CCC, and the star formation efficiency per collision epsilon_CCC for apertures with N_CCC >= 0.1 Myr^-1, and compare these quantities between the disk, bar, and bar-end regions. The central finding is that m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC are lowest in the bar (medians 10^3.84 M_sun and 0.18%), highest in the bar-end (10^4.89 M_sun and 1.10%), and intermediate in the disk (10^4.28 M_sun and 0.75%). The authors interpret this as evidence that higher collision velocities in the bar suppress per-collision star formation, while higher GMC masses and surface densities in the bar-end enhance it, thereby explaining kpc-scale star formation efficiency variations in barred galaxies. The paper includes extensive robustness tests for aperture size, extraction threshold, SFR tracer, R21, alpha_CO, and GMC identification parameters.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides one of the first observational connections between cloud-scale collision properties and kpc-scale star formation efficiency variations across different galactic structures. The analysis is careful and unusually thorough in its treatment of systematic uncertainties: the results are tested against aperture size, selection threshold, SFR tracer, variable R21, metallicity-dependent alpha_CO, and GMC identification parameters, and the qualitative structural differences persist across most of these tests. The paper also clearly acknowledges the definitional inverse dependence of m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC on vcol. However, the validity of the central claim rests entirely on the interpretation of vcol as a true collision velocity. The proxy in Eq. (2) subtracts only the aperture-mean line-of-sight velocity, so organized streaming, shear, or orbital crossing within a 500 pc aperture is counted as random collisional motion. Because bars have the strongest non-circular streaming, this is a direct threat to the structural comparison, and the paper's appeal to Fujimoto et al. (2020) simulations is not a substitute for a test in NGC 3627 itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2); Section 5.3] The collision velocity proxy vcol is computed as the RMS of GMC line-of-sight velocities about the aperture mean, multiplied by sqrt(2)/sin(i). This removes only a constant velocity offset; a linear or large-scale velocity gradient across the 500 pc aperture, such as bar streaming, shear, or orbital crossing, remains in the residual and is treated as random collisional motion. The bar is precisely the region where such organized streaming is expected to be strongest, so the bar's high median vcol of 44.4 km/s (Table 1) may be substantially inflated relative to the bar-end's 21.0 km/s. Since nu_CCC, m*_CCC, and epsilon_CCC are all derived by dividing by or multiplying by vcol (Eqs. 3, 5, 6), this bias propagates directly into the headline medians. The paper's defense in Section 2 and Section 5.3 is an appeal to the Fujimoto et al. (2020) simulations, but no quantitative test is presented for NGC 3627. I request a direct test: for example, subtract a best-fit linear or rigid-body velocity gradient within each aperture before computing vcol, or compare vcol to an independent measure of random cloud motion, or show from the observed cloud velocity field that the residual scatter is not dominated by a spatial gradient. Without such a test, the structural comparison may measure a velocity-gradient artifact rather than true collision velocity.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The authors acknowledge that m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC are inversely proportional to vcol by construction, because vcol appears in the denominator of nu_CCC and hence in m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC. Their argument that the fitted power-law slopes of -1.31 to -1.47 are steeper than -1 and therefore demonstrate a physical suppression effect is not fully convincing. Fitted slopes in a ratio-like quantity can be steepened by selection effects: apertures with high vcol are preferentially retained by the N_CCC >= 0.1 Myr^-1 criterion, and noise in vcol propagates nonlinearly into the ratio. The steepening could also arise from correlations between vcol and the other fitted variables, since vcol, Sigma_GMC, and M_GMC are not independent in the aperture sample. I request a control analysis, for example a synthetic or bootstrap test in which m*_CCC is exactly proportional to 1/vcol with no physical suppression, subjected to the same selection and fitting procedure, to show that the fitted slope is indeed unbiased and significantly steeper than the null expectation. Without this, the physical interpretation of the steepened slopes should be tempered.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 5.1.2, extraction criterion] The analysis assumes that apertures satisfying N_CCC >= 0.1 Myr^-1 are dominated by CCC-driven star formation, so the total aperture SFR is divided by the collision rate to obtain m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC. This is a strong assumption that is not independently validated. If a substantial fraction of the H-alpha emission in an aperture comes from non-CCC star formation, then m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC are systematically overestimated, and the overestimation could vary by structure if the relative importance of non-CCC star formation differs between the bar, bar-end, and disk. The paper's fraction-of-total-SFR argument (about 80% of the SFR falls in the selected apertures) does not establish that the selected apertures are dominated by CCCs internally. I request a test of this assumption, for example by comparing the derived m*_CCC against an independent CCC tracer or by using the t_CCC < 30 Myr variant as a more stringent selection and checking whether the structural conclusions remain quantitatively consistent. A brief discussion of how non-CCC contamination would bias the structural comparison would help the reader assess the robustness of the central claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.4, R21 discussion] The discussion of variable R21 is clear, but the sentence beginning 'In fact, R21 measurements at 200 pc scale' would benefit from explicitly stating whether the quoted 200 pc values are from den Brok et al. (2023) for NGC 3627 or from a different sample; the current wording is easy to misread.
  2. [Table 3, note] The note explaining the relationship between the fitted coefficients g, h, j, k, and l is accurate but terse; adding one explicit line, such as 'because epsilon_CCC = m*_CCC / M_bar_GMC, we have j = g, k = h - 1, l = i', would prevent reader confusion.
  3. [Section 3.1.3] The phrase 'random-like motion' in the description of the GMC velocity field is vague; since the entire method depends on the random-motion assumption, it would help to define what is meant by 'random-like' and to state explicitly how that assumption is tested or justified for the apertures used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Per-collision SFE and SFR are defined with νCCC ∝ vcol, so the reported inverse vcol dependence is partly built into the definitions; the paper acknowledges this, and the steeper-than-minus-one fitted slope preserves independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, using Eqs. (3), (5), and (6); see also Table 1]
    "Note that, due to the calculation method, m⋆CCC and ϵCCC inherently tend to decrease as vcol increases. Specifically, m⋆CCC and ϵCCC are calculated using Equations (3),(5) and (6), which inherently results in a tendency to be inversely proportional to vcol."

    Equation (3) sets νCCC = 2 R̄GMC nGMC vcol, and Equation (5) defines m⋆CCC = ΣSFR/(νCCC nGMC), so m⋆CCC ∝ 1/vcol for fixed ΣSFR, R̄GMC, and nGMC; Equation (6) carries the same inverse-vcol dependence into ϵCCC. Thus the bar's higher median vcol (44.4 km/s vs 21.0 km/s in the bar-end, Table 1) mechanically lowers the bar's m⋆CCC and ϵCCC even before any physical suppression is invoked. The structural conclusion that higher vcol in the bar leads to lower per-collision star formation therefore restates part of the definitions. The only non-built-in evidence is the fitted exponents −1.31/−1.47 being steeper than the −1 implied by Eq. (5); that residual is independent, which prevents full circularity.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about the constructional correlation: it explicitly states that m⋆CCC and ϵCCC inherently tend to decrease as vcol increases because of Equations (3), (5), and (6). That admission is accurate and is the principal circular element. However, the central claim does not rest entirely on this built-in relation. The measured Hα-based ΣSFR enters the numerator independently, the multivariate fits yield vcol exponents steeper than −1 (−1.31 ± 0.08 and −1.47 ± 0.09), and the structural separation in the (vcol, ΣGMC) parameter space is an empirical observation. These components are not fixed by the definitions. The random-motion assumption for vcol is justified by citing Fujimoto et al. (2020) and Maeda et al. (2021); although those works share authors with this paper, they are external simulation and observational evidence on other systems, so they are not treated here as circular. The shear/streaming concern raised by the reader is a systematic-bias issue rather than a circularity issue and does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the headline inverse dependence is partly by construction, but the steeper-than-minus-one slope and the measured structural differences preserve independent content, giving a score below the threshold for fully construction-forced results.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on a CCC mean-free-path model and a statistical deprojection of collision velocities, but it introduces no new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The main free choices are the collision-rate threshold and the fitted power-law coefficients, with the latter used to argue for a physical suppression effect beyond the definitional trend.

free parameters (2)
  • Aperture extraction threshold NCCC_min = 0.1 Myr^-1
    Chosen by hand to select apertures considered dominated by CCC-driven star formation. It affects the sample and the median values, though a robustness check with tCCC < 30 Myr is reported.
  • Power-law fit coefficients for m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC = a = -1.31 +/- 0.08, b = 1.00 +/- 0.05, d = -1.47 +/- 0.09, e = 0.31 +/- 0.06 (dap = 500 pc)
    Fitted to aperture data with SciPy curve_fit (Table 3). The argument that the vcol dependence is steeper than the definitional -1 rests on these fitted values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GMC velocities within a 500 pc aperture follow random two-dimensional motion, so vcol can be recovered from the line-of-sight velocity dispersion via Eq (2).
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq (2). Supported by prior simulations cited by the authors, but not directly verified with the present data.
  • domain assumption Collision frequency is given by nu_CCC = 2 R_GMC n_GMC vcol (Eq 3), a mean-free-path formula for randomly moving clouds.
    Section 2, Eq (3). Assumes no clustering, shear, or orbital-crossing corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper Apertures with NCCC >= 0.1 Myr^-1 are dominated by CCC-driven star formation, so total aperture SFR can be attributed to collisions.
    Section 4.1. This threshold is paper-specific and is not derived from external constraints.
  • domain assumption Attenuation-corrected Halpha luminosity traces SFR with the fixed Murphy et al. (2011) conversion coefficient.
    Section 3.2, Eq (7). Standard tracer, but subject to uncertainties from extinction correction and AGN contamination.
  • domain assumption GMC masses are obtained with a constant Milky Way alpha_CO = 4.35 and R21 = 0.65.
    Section 3.1.3. The authors test variable R21 and metallicity-dependent alpha_CO, but dust-based alpha_CO values could lower masses by 4-9 times, as they note.
  • domain assumption The Tan (2000) CCC star formation model, Sigma_SFR = epsilon f_sf nu_CCC n_GMC Mbar, applies within the selected apertures and f_sf can be folded into epsilon_CCC.
    Section 2, Eq (1). This provides the framework for defining m*_CCC and epsilon_CCC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galactic structure dependence of cloud-cloud collisions driven star formation in the barred galaxy NGC 3627." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJKIGKCJ

@misc{pith2026250206102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galactic structure dependence of cloud-cloud collisions driven star formation in the barred galaxy NGC 3627},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJKIGKCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06102}
}
abstract

While cloud-cloud collisions (CCCs) have been proposed as a mechanism for triggering massive star formation, it is suggested that higher collision velocities ($v_{\rm col}$) and lower GMC mass ($M_{\rm GMC}$) or/and density ($\Sigma_{\rm GMC}$) tend to suppress star formation. In this study, we choose the nearby barred galaxy NGC 3627 to examine the SFR and SFE of a colliding GMC ($m^\star_{\rm CCC}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$) and explore the connections between $m^\star_{\rm CCC}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$, $M_{\rm GMC}$($\Sigma_{\rm GMC}$) and $v_{\rm col}$, and galactic structures (disk, bar, and bar-end). Using ALMA CO(2--1) data (60~pc resolution), we estimated $v_{\rm col}$ within 500~pc apertures, based on line-of-sight GMC velocities, assuming random motion in a two-dimensional plane. We extracted apertures where at least 0.1 collisions occur per 1 Myr, identifying them as regions dominated by CCC-driven star formation, and then calculated $m^\star_{\rm CCC}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$ using attenuation-corrected H$\alpha$ data from VLT MUSE. We found that both $m^\star_{\rm CCC}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm CCC}$ are lower in the bar (median values: $10^{3.84}~M_\odot$ and $0.18~\%$), and higher in the bar-end ($10^{4.89}~M_\odot$ and $1.10~\%$) compared to the disk ($10^{4.28}~M_\odot$ and $0.75~\%$). Furthermore, we found that structural differences within the parameter space of $v_{\rm col}$ and $M_{\rm GMC}$($\Sigma_{\rm GMC}$), with higher $M_{\rm GMC}$($\Sigma_{\rm GMC}$) in the bar-end and higher $v_{\rm col}$ in the bar compared to the disk, lead to higher star formation activity in the bar-end and lower activity in the bar. Our results support the scenario that variations in CCC properties across different galactic structures can explain the observed differences in SFE on a kpc scale within a disk galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06102 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) CO(2–1) moment 0 map of NGC 3627. The color shows the molecular gas surface density (Σmol). We adopt a constant Milky Way αCO of 4.35 M⊙ (K km s−1 pc−2 ) −1 and R21 = 0.65. The black-filled circle at the lower left corner represents the beam size. The black rectangles represent the boundaries of the center, the bar, and the bar-end regions defined by Maeda et al. (2023). The black frame is the FOV of the MUSE ob… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Properties of the GMCs in NGC 3627. (a) The normalized cumulative distribution function of GMC radius in the whole (gray solid line), bar-end (orange bold line), and bar region (blue dotted line), respectively. The regions of bar-end and bar are represented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Position of hexagonal apertures (blue) with a size of dap = 500 pc to cover all the GMCs (open circle) in the FoV of the Hα image (black frame). The orange rectangles represent the boundaries of the center, the bar, and the bar-end regions. (b) Apertures with NCCC ≥ 0.1 Myr−1 . Here, NCCC is the number of collisions that occur per unit of time within an aperture. (a) vcol 1 kpc 10 1 10 2 log vcol [km=s] (dap = 5… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of (a) the collision velocity (vcol), (b) the total mass of stars formed per CCC (m⋆ CCC), and (c) the SFE per CCC (ϵCCC) within an aperture in NGC 3627. We used the apertures with NCCC ≥ 0.1 Myr−1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of star formation on collision velocity and GMC surface density/mass in NGC 3627. SFR is derived from Hα emission corrected for attenuation (Section 3.2). (a) Dependence of the total mass of stars formed per CCC (m⋆ CCC) on the Σ¯ GMC and the vcol. (b) Depen…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fitting results of the dependence of m⋆ CCC and ϵCCC on vcol and Σ¯ GMC (M¯GMC). and (6), which inherently results in a tendency to be inversely proportional to vcol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

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. Extreme cloud collisions in nearby barred galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Extended velocity features, broad-lined molecular clouds in bar dust lanes, are detected in 34% of nearby barred galaxies and are consistent with high-speed cloud-cloud collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1556

    Accurso, G., Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1556

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1556 2017

  2. [2]

    1996, PASJ, 48, 275, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.275 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Arimoto, N., Sofue, Y ., & Tsujimoto, T. 1996, PASJ, 48, 275, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.275 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1093/pasj/48.2.275 1996

  3. [3]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1086/324269 2001

  6. [6]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3525

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3525 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Cohen, S

    Dale, D. A., Cohen, S. A., Johnson, L. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 517, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/517

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/517 2009

  8. [8]

    I., et al

    Demachi, F., Fukui, Y ., Yamada, R. I., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1059, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae071 den Brok, J. S., Chatzigiannakis, D., Bigiel, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab859 den Brok, J. S., Leroy, A. K., Usero, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3091

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psae071 2024

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Radford, S

    Downes, D., Reynaud, D., Solomon, P. M., & Radford, S. J. E. 1996, ApJ, 461, 186, doi: 10.1086/177046

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2209

    Emsellem, E., Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2209

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, A&A, 659, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    Emsellem, E., Schinnerer, E., Santoro, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, PASJ, 73, S75, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz119

    Enokiya, R., Torii, K., & Fukui, Y . 2021, PASJ, 73, S75, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz119

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Barthel, P

    Filho, M. E., Barthel, P. D., & Ho, L. C. 2000, ApJS, 129, 93, doi: 10.1086/313412

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa840

    Fujimoto, Y ., Maeda, F., Habe, A., & Ohta, K. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa840

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    J., & Habe, A

    Fujimoto, Y ., Tasker, E. J., & Habe, A. 2014a, MNRAS, 445, L65, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu138

    doi

  8. [16]

    J., Wakayama, M., & Habe, A

    Fujimoto, Y ., Tasker, E. J., Wakayama, M., & Habe, A. 2014b, MNRAS, 439, 936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu014

    doi

  9. [17]

    2021, PASJ, 73, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa103

    Fukui, Y ., Habe, A., Inoue, T., Enokiya, R., & Tachihara, K. 2021, PASJ, 73, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa103

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/36

    Fukui, Y ., Ohama, A., Hanaoka, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/36

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Combes, F., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Combes, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/69 CCC IN NGC 3627 19

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad114

    Groves, B., Kreckel, K., Santoro, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad114

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    1992, PASJ, 44, 203

    Habe, A., & Ohta, K. 1992, PASJ, 44, 203

    1992

  15. [23]

    1991, in Dynamics of Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions, ed

    Handa, T., Sofue, Y ., & Nakai, N. 1991, in Dynamics of Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions, ed. F. Combes & F. Casoli, V ol. 146, 156

    1991

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    2015, A&A, 582, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526047

    Herrera-Endoqui, M., D´ıaz-Garc´ıa, S., Laurikainen, E., & Salo, H. 2015, A&A, 582, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526047

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V ., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315, doi: 10.1086/313041

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3798

    Horie, S., Okamoto, T., & Habe, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3798

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    1997, PASJ, 49, 323, doi: 10.1093/pasj/49.3.323

    Ikuta, C., & Sofue, Y . 1997, PASJ, 49, 323, doi: 10.1093/pasj/49.3.323

    1997 doi

  21. [29]

    2009, ApJ, 704, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/161

    Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2009, ApJ, 704, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/161

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, ApJS, 184, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/1

    Kawamura, A., Mizuno, Y ., Minamidani, T., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/1

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C

    Kepley, A. A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 024505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5e14

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3006, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2339

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Querejeta, M., et al

    Kim, T., Gadotti, D. A., Querejeta, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad410e

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Yoon, D., & Teuben, P

    Kim, W.-T., Seo, W.-Y ., Stone, J. M., Yoon, D., & Teuben, P. J. 2012, ApJ, 747, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/60

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Kobayashi, M. I. N., Kobayashi, H., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Fukui, Y . 2018, PASJ, 70, S59, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy018

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 793, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.5.793

    Komugi, S., Sofue, Y ., & Egusa, F. 2006, PASJ, 58, 793, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.5.793

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Blanc, G

    Kreckel, K., Ho, I. T., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5115

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  31. [39]

    E., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Lang, P., Meidt, S. E., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9953

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Zhang, Q., Ricci, L., et al

    Law, C. J., Zhang, Q., Ricci, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadca9

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Bigiel, F., de Blok, W

    Leroy, A. K., Bigiel, F., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/3

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Sandstrom, K

    Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K. M., Lang, D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca664

    Maeda, F., Egusa, F., Ohta, K., Fujimoto, Y ., & Habe, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca664

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4505

    Maeda, F., Egusa, F., Ohta, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4505

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2020a, MNRAS, 493, 5045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa556 —

    Maeda, F., Ohta, K., Fujimoto, Y ., & Habe, A. 2020a, MNRAS, 493, 5045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa556 —. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab130

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2020b, MNRAS, 495, 3840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1296

    Maeda, F., Ohta, K., Fujimoto, Y ., Habe, A., & Ushio, K. 2020b, MNRAS, 495, 3840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1296

    doi

  42. [50]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  43. [51]

    E., Schinnerer, E., Garc´ıa-Burillo, S., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., Garc´ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/45

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    K., Koda, J., & Sawada, T

    Momose, R., Okumura, S. K., Koda, J., & Sawada, T. 2010, ApJ, 721, 383, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/383

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 89, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw080

    Muraoka, K., Sorai, K., Kuno, N., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 89, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw080

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c2

    Pan, H.-A., & Kuno, N. 2017, ApJ, 839, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c2

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    2004

  49. [57]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2223

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Emsellem, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2223

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    1998, A&A, 337, 671

    Reynaud, D., & Downes, D. 1998, A&A, 337, 671

    1998

  51. [59]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python. http://ascl.net/1208.017

    2012

  52. [60]

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

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

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    K., et al

    Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab085

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    R., & Okamoto, T

    Sakre, N., Habe, A., Pettitt, A. R., & Okamoto, T. 2021, PASJ, 73, S385, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa059

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    R., et al

    Sakre, N., Habe, A., Pettitt, A. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1089

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/4 S´anchez, S

    Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., Laine, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/4 S´anchez, S. F., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Iglesias-P´aramo, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322343

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Leroy, A

    Sandstrom, K. M., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/5

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    Z., Sanders, D

    Scoville, N. Z., Sanders, D. B., & Clemens, D. P. 1986, ApJL, 310, L77, doi: 10.1086/184785

    1986 doi

  59. [67]

    2012, PASJ, 64, 51, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.3.51 20 M AEDA ET AL

    Sorai, K., Kuno, N., Nishiyama, K., et al. 2012, PASJ, 64, 51, doi: 10.1093/pasj/64.3.51 20 M AEDA ET AL

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Treß, R

    Sormani, M. C., Treß, R. G., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2054

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    K., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac74bd

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    Takahira, K., Shima, K., Habe, A., & Tasker, E. J. 2018, PASJ, 70, S58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy011

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    J., & Habe, A

    Takahira, K., Tasker, E. J., & Habe, A. 2014, ApJ, 792, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/63

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    Tan, J. C. 2000, ApJ, 536, 173, doi: 10.1086/308905

    2000 doi

  65. [73]

    Tubbs, A. D. 1982, ApJ, 255, 458, doi: 10.1086/159846

    1982 doi

  66. [74]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 323, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323

    2009 doi

  67. [75]

    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

  68. [76]

    2019, ApJS, 242, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1d63

    Watanabe, Y ., Nishimura, Y ., Sorai, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1d63

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz022

    Yajima, Y ., Sorai, K., Kuno, N., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz022

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa119

    Yajima, Y ., Sorai, K., Miyamoto, Y ., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 257, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa119

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 743, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad034

    Yasuda, A., Kuno, N., Sorai, K., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 743, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad034

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    E., & Knapen, J

    Zurita, A., Rela˜no, M., Beckman, J. E., & Knapen, J. H. 2004, A&A, 413, 73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031049

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.