Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

FEASTS: The Fate of Gas and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tidal interaction depletes the neutral gas of the smaller galaxy in a pair and suppresses its star formation, while the larger galaxy's response is weaker and more complex.

desk verdict Genuinely useful paper on HI disorder in interacting galaxies, but the secondary-galaxy headline depends on an ad hoc flux division that deserves a robustness test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08218 v1 pith:ECIAKADR submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.GA

Shun Wang , Jing Wang , Karen Lee-Waddell , Dong Yang , Xuchen Lin , Lister Staveley-Smith This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyinteractionsatomichydrogen(Hi)starformationsuppressiontidalstrippingdisorderparametersFEASTSsurveyFASTtelescopepairs
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

Using full-sensitivity atomic hydrogen (Hi) maps from the FEASTS survey, this paper tries to establish what tidal interaction does to the gas reservoirs and star formation of galaxy pairs. The central claim is that the net effect on the smaller (secondary) galaxy is a significant loss of Hi and total neutral gas, together with suppressed star formation, and that these deficits scale with a set of new 'disorder parameters' that quantify how much Hi has been dragged out of the disks. For the larger (primary) galaxies the situation is more complex: gas deficiency tracks the piling of Hi at the two ends of the system, but not its overall expansion or clumpiness. The paper also finds that both members have less Hi inside their disks and more outside than isolated control galaxies. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a quantitative, morphology-based handle on which stage of an interaction a system is in, and it reconciles conflicting earlier findings on whether interacting galaxies are Hi-rich or Hi-poor.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a set of newly defined 'disorder parameters' measured from the Hi moment-0 maps and from residual maps obtained by subtracting idealized mock Hi disks. The parameters include the fraction of (residual) Hi flux outside the disks, the fraction piled at the two ends of the system, the expansion parameter $L$ (the geometric extent of Hi normalized by the sum of the disks' radii), and the clumpiness parameter $S$ (the absolute residual sum divided by the moment-0 sum, outside the disks). The comparisons rest on two constructed baselines: control Hi disks made by enlarging and rotating the disks of matched isolated galaxies, and mock disks built with the GALMOD module using an Hi size–mass relation, a universal radial profile, and median rotation curves. A further load-bearing piece is the division of Hi flux between the two galaxies by an Apollonius circle, which assumes the boundary where a test mass experiences equal tidal torque from the two members; the paper itself warns that projection and orbital history make this division uncertain.

What would settle it

A kinematic decomposition of the Hi in one of the observed pairs — checking whether gas on each side of the division boundary rotates with the assigned galaxy — would test the load-bearing flux split; alternatively, applying the same disorder parameters to hydrodynamical pair simulations with known gas-loss fractions would test whether the correlations recover true stripping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that the net consequence of a tidal interaction on the gas reservoir of the galaxies is a significant decrease in Hi content and total neutral gas content for the secondary galaxies, and that this decrease is statistically tied to the degree of Hi morphological disorder. The disorder parameters — flux fractions outside the Hi disks, residual flux at the two ends of the system, the physical extent of Hi (expansion), and the clumpiness of residual flux — all rise in interacting systems against matched controls. For secondary galaxies, almost all of these parameters anti-correlate with the Hi excess, the corrected (Hi+H2) excess, and the star-formation-rate excess, whereas for primary galaxies only the parameters describing Hi piled at the two ends of the system show significant correlations with gas deficiency. The authors interpret this as gas removal dominating the tidal effect on secondaries, while primaries experience a competition between gas depletion and later accretion from cooling circumgalactic gas, a picture they explicitly label as speculative.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a single geometric boundary — where a test parcel of gas would feel equal tidal pull from the two galaxies — correctly assigns all the observed gas to one galaxy or the other; if projection effects or gas in bridges between the galaxies bias that split, the measured gas losses and correlations would be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Almost all disorder parameters rise in interacting systems relative to controls, so a single morphology-based measure can flag tidal interaction from an Hi map even when the companion is faint.
  • Secondary galaxies show a strong and consistent anti-correlation between gas deficiency (Hi and total neutral gas) and Hi disorder: the more disturbed the Hi, the more gas is lost and the more star formation is suppressed.
  • For primary galaxies, only the piling of Hi at the two ends of the system correlates with gas deficiency, not expansion or clumpiness; the implication is that primary galaxies are not simply stripped, but can later re-accrete gas.
  • Both members have depressed Hi surface density inside their disks and enhanced density outside, meaning the interaction redistributes gas outward in a systematic, measurable way.
  • The correlation between clumpiness and relative velocity, and between expansion and stellar-mass ratio, shows that the disorder parameters encode the orbital configuration of the pair.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the disorder parameters are computed purely from the spatial morphology of Hi, they could in principle be applied to interferometric data cubes (with missing-flux corrections) or to simulated galaxy pairs, offering a direct observable-to-simulation bridge; the paper does not make this application.
  • The paper's two-stage picture for primaries — first depletion as gas is dragged out, then accretion as expanded Hi cools circumgalactic gas — would predict that systems caught just after first passage, with small separation and high disorder, should show the largest Hi deficiency, a test that a larger sample with known orbital phases could check.
  • If the Apollonius-circle division is biased, the primary/secondary asymmetry itself could be partly an artifact of how bridge and tail gas is assigned; a kinematic decomposition of the Hi using the velocity field would test whether gas near the boundary truly follows the assigned member's rotation.
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 uses FAST FEASTS single-dish HI observations of eight interacting galaxy systems and ten isolated controls to quantify tidal perturbation of HI morphology. The authors construct control and mock HI disks, define a set of disorder parameters from residual maps (piling, clumpiness, expansion), and correlate these parameters with HI excess, corrected neutral-gas excess, and SFR excess relative to main-sequence relations. They report that interacting systems are more disordered than controls; that HI clumpiness increases with smaller relative velocity; that secondary galaxies show significant anti-correlations between HI/total-gas deficiency and SFR suppression and most disorder parameters; and that primary galaxies show weaker, Pearson-only correlations driven largely by one system (NGC4631). The paper concludes that gas removal dominates the tidal effect on secondaries, while primaries are more complex.

Significance. The significance is moderate. If the secondary-galaxy correlations are physically real, they provide direct evidence from sensitive single-dish HI mapping that tidal interactions strip gas and suppress star formation in less massive galaxies, complementing interferometric studies that miss diffuse flux. The paper's strengths include explicit reporting of Pearson, Spearman and Kendall results in Appendix F, bootstrap uncertainties, and the use of matched controls; the authors also honestly flag the small sample and the uncertainties in HI flux division. However, the headline HI-depletion result depends on a geometric flux-assignment rule, and the primary-galaxy claims are not robust under non-parametric tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.2 (Eqs 1-3); Section 5.3; Table 5] The Apollonius-circle division is load-bearing for the central claim that secondary galaxies lose HI. The circle assigns all HI inside the projected boundary to the secondary and everything outside to the primary, based only on stellar mass ratio and projected separation; it does not trace gas kinematics or origin. If HI in a bridge or tail originated in the secondary but lies on the primary side of the circle, the secondary M_HI is underestimated, the primary M_HI is overestimated, and the same systems show high disorder. This can create the exact pattern of Table 5 and the abstract's conclusion (iii). The uncertainty is acknowledged in Sections 3.1.2 and 5.3, but no quantitative test is given. I request a sensitivity analysis or an alternative split-independent estimate: for example, re-run the correlations after varying k in Eq. (3) by the stellar-mass uncertainties, reassign bridge/tail flux to the secondary based on the moment-1 velocity field, or use the total-system HI minus a primary-only mask. If the Table 5 secondary correlations survive, the conclusion is secure; if not, the abstract and Section 6(iii) should be softened.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 5, Appendix F, Section 5.3] The primary-galaxy result as stated in the abstract ('HI and total neutral gas deficiency correlate with more HI piling at two ends') is not supported by non-parametric tests. Appendix F shows no significant Spearman or Kendall correlations for primary ΔlogM_HI or ΔlogM_HI,cor, and Section 5.3 states that the significant Pearson correlations are largely driven by NGC4631; removing it drops the significance to 0.30 and 0.38. Since the abstract and Section 6 present this as a key finding, the manuscript should either move the primary-galaxy statement to a tentative result, report the outlier-removed p-values in the main table, or qualify the conclusion consistently with Appendix F. The authors' own caveat is correct, but the abstract overstates the robustness.
  3. [Section 3.3.3, Eqs (8)-(10)] The corrected HI excess used for 'total neutral gas' is partly constructed rather than observed. For galaxies without CO images, Δlog M_H2 is obtained from ΔlogSFR via Eq. (10), which assumes the xCOLD GASS scaling relation and quasi-equilibrium. Because SFR excess itself correlates with disorder in secondaries, the ΔlogM_HI,cor correlations in Table 5 can be inflated by construction. The authors flag the quasi-equilibrium caveat in Section 3.3.3, but the abstract still states a decrease in 'total neutral gas content' for secondary galaxies. I ask for a robustness check restricted to the galaxies with direct CO-based H2 measurements, or an explicit statement of how much of the corrected excess comes from Eq. (10).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 6] The labels 'significance=0.00(0.00)' should define whether this is a p-value or a significance level, and how the two numbers relate to the bootstrap; the current format is ambiguous.
  2. [Table 4 and Table 5] Table 4 highlights correlations with p<0.10 while Table 5 highlights p<0.05; state this difference in the captions or unify the thresholds.
  3. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'the correlation significance ... drops to 0.30 and 0.38' should specify that these are p-values (presumably after removing NGC4631) and state the corresponding Pearson coefficients.
  4. [Section 2.4] The statement that 'we remind the readers to be cautious about the inhomogeneity in these parameters' is helpful, but a short table of which inclination values are from which reference, rather than only footnote letters in Table 1, would make the systematics easier to follow.
  5. [Appendix B] It would help to state explicitly whether the watershed separation of small-galaxy flux is applied before or after the Apollonius division in Section 3.1.2, since both steps affect M_HI.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Secondary-galaxy HI-deficiency correlations are partly self-normalized via R_HI(M_HI) in the disorder parameters.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.3.1, Eq. (4); Table 5 correlations for secondary galaxies]
    "The size of the HI disk (R_HI) is derived based on the HI size-mass relation (Wang et al. 2016). ... L ≡ sqrt(L_R.A. × L_DEC.)/(R_HI,prim + R_HI,sec) (4) ... Δ logM_HI ≡ log M_HI − log M_HI,MS(M∗) (6)"

    R_HI is computed from the measured M_HI via the HI size-mass relation, and L normalizes the observed HI extent by R_HI. Any reduction in M_HI automatically shrinks R_HI and inflates L, even if the physical extent of the HI is unchanged. The paper then correlates Δ(L) with ΔlogM_HI and reports R = -0.94 for secondary galaxies (Table 5). That near-unity anti-correlation is to a large degree produced by the shared M_HI appearing in Equation (6) (numerator of the gas excess) and in the denominator of Equation (4), rather than by tidal expansion of the gas.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.3.1 region definitions; Table 5]
    "We also plot the HI disk regions with semi-major axis set to R_HI ... • F123/Ftot, the fraction of fluxes outside the HI disks."

    The 'outside HI disk' apertures used for the piling parameters are ellipses with semi-major axis R_HI, and R_HI is derived from the same M_HI that defines ΔlogM_HI. A smaller M_HI yields a smaller R_HI, so a larger portion of the galaxy is classified as outside the disk, mechanically raising F123/Ftot, R12/F123, f+123, and related parameters. Thus the strong anti-correlations between ΔlogM_HI and these piling parameters for secondary galaxies (e.g., R ≈ -0.92 for Δ(F123/Ftot) in Table 5) are partly self-normalization, not independent evidence that tidal stripping drives the gas deficiency.

full rationale

The paper's measurement chain is mostly external: HI masses from the Apollonius-circle flux division, disorder parameters from residual maps, and gas excesses defined relative to HIMS/SFMS are separate constructions, and the control-sample comparison is a legitimate empirical design. The static Apollonius division is a modeling assumption that can bias the secondary-deficiency result, but it is not circular because the division rule is not fitted to the outcome. The mock rotation-curve scaling ('We additionally scale the rotation curve in some cases so that the HI flux distribution of mock in PSD (Figure 2) matches the sample galaxies reasonably well') is a calibration caveat that weakens independence, but it does not reduce the central claim by definition. However, two disorder parameters carry a genuine self-referential loop: L normalizes the observed HI extent by R_HI, and the 'outside HI disk' apertures use R_HI, while R_HI is derived from the very M_HI entering ΔlogM_HI. Because R_HI shrinks as M_HI decreases, low gas excess mechanically produces high Δ(L), F123/Ftot, and related piling parameters even without tidal redistribution. Table 5's near-unity anti-correlations for secondaries therefore partly reflect shared inputs rather than independent physics. The headline statement that secondary galaxies have decreased HI and total neutral gas is not wholly reduced — the deficiency relative to HIMS and some residual-based correlations survive independent scrutiny — but the strength of the evidence connecting disorder to depletion is inflated by the R_HI(M_HI) self-normalization. Score 6 reflects partial circularity in a load-bearing correlation set, not full reduction of the paper's conclusions.

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

No new physical entities are invented. The modeling assumptions are concentrated in the mock/control baselines and the flux division; the central correlations additionally depend on external main-sequence calibrations. The main free parameter is the ad hoc rotation curve scaling in mock construction, which slightly couples the baseline to the data.

free parameters (3)
  • Mock rotation curve scaling factors = not specified (per-system adjustments)
    Section 3.2.2: 'We additionally scale the rotation curve in some cases so that the HI flux distribution of mock in PSD matches the sample galaxies reasonably well.' This tuning ties the mock baseline to the very data being analyzed, affecting residual maps.
  • Half-Gaussian sigma for mock HI profile adjustment = sigma = 0.2 R_HI
    Appendix C: a half-Gaussian centered on R=0 with dispersion 0.2 R_HI is added to the mock HI profile to enforce flux conservation. The sigma is chosen by hand; other choices would change the inner profile and residual maps.
  • Inclination bin boundaries for control selection = 50 deg and 80 deg
    Section 3.2.1: controls are matched to interacting galaxies by three inclination bins (<50, 50-80, >80 deg). The boundaries are arbitrary and affect which controls are used.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HI size-mass relation and universal HI radial profile from Wang et al. (2016) describe the average isolated galaxy and can be extrapolated to 2 R_HI for mocks.
    Used in Section 3.2.2 to construct mock HI disks; if wrong, residual maps are biased.
  • domain assumption The scaling relation between H2 excess and SFR excess (Eq 10: Δlog M_H2 = 0.515 Δlog SFR + 0.078) from xCOLD GASS applies to the interacting galaxies, allowing calculation of corrected HI excess.
    Section 3.3.3; the authors note this assumes quasi-equilibrium, which is unlikely for interacting/starbursting galaxies, so the corrected excess is only a first-order estimate.
  • domain assumption The main-sequence relations HIMS (Janowiecki et al. 2020) and SFMS (Saintonge et al. 2016) provide the expected HI mass and SFR for isolated galaxies at a given stellar mass.
    Section 3.3.3 defines Δlog M_HI and Δlog SFR relative to these external relations; if the interacting galaxies are not drawn from the same parent population, the excesses are biased.
  • domain assumption The isolated control galaxies, matched by inclination and rescaled to the same apparent size, represent the pre-interaction state of the interacting galaxies.
    Section 3.2.1; with only 10 controls and coarse inclination matching, the control baseline may not capture the full diversity of HI morphologies.
  • domain assumption The Apollonius circle with k = (M_prim/M_sec)^(1/3) divides HI flux according to tidal torque balance, with negligible projection or orbital-history effects.
    Section 3.1.2, Eqs 1-3; acknowledged by the authors as uncertain, but it is the only flux division used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FEASTS: The Fate of Gas and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECIAKADR

@misc{pith2026250208218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FEASTS: The Fate of Gas and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECIAKADR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08218}
}
read the original abstract

We use HI data from the FAST Extended Atlas of Selected Targets Survey (FEASTS) to study the interplay between gas and star formation of galaxies in interacting systems. We build control and mock HI disks and parameterize HI disorder by a series of disorder parameters, describing the piling, clumpiness and expansion of HI. We find that interacting galaxies have higher HI disorder described by almost all disorder parameters. Systems with comparable stellar masses and small relative velocities tend to have stronger expansion and clumpiness of HI. At a given stellar mass, decreased HI and total neutral gas mass and suppressed star formation rate of secondary galaxies are correlated with most disorder parameters. For primary galaxies, HI and total neutral gas deficiency correlate with more HI piling at two ends of the system outside HI disks but not with the expansion or clumpiness of HI. We also find that the HI surface densities of both primary and secondary galaxies are lower within the HI disks and higher outside compared to the control galaxies. Our results suggest that while all the disorder parameters quantify the interaction strength almost equally well, they have different sensitivities in tracing star formation rate and gas mass enhancements. They also imply that while gas removal likely dominates the tidal effects on secondary galaxies, primary galaxies experience more complex situation that are possibly related to gas depletion and accretion happening at different interaction stages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08218 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical images with Hi column density contours overlaid and Hi moment-1 maps of the eight interacting systems. The optical images are from DESI Legacy Survey. The contour levels are 5 − 𝜎 detection limit (purple, assuming 20 km s−1 line widths), 1018 (pink), 1019 (yellow), 1020 (orange) and 1021 (red) cm−2 . The solid contours enclose fluxes of the main Hi component of the systems. The dashed contours enclose Hi flu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hi PSD of the interacting systems with contour of mock and real PSD overlaid. The projected distance 𝑑proj is normalized by 𝑅HI and the relative velocity Δ𝑉 is normalized by 𝑉rot of the reference galaxy. The reference galaxy is the primary galaxy except for the NGC1055-M77 system where it is the secondary galaxy. The pixel sizes are determined individually for each system. The pixel values are all normalized so they… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A cartoon illustrating the definition of different regions. Symbols in green and orange are related to primary and secondary galaxy, respectively. Hi disks are shown as dashed ellipses. The solid lines enclose the regions at two ends of the system. Regions denoted as 𝐴1 and 𝐴2 are highlighted in green and orange, respectively. Region denoted as 𝐴3 is hatched. The thin solid gray curve outlines the source mask produc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FEASTS interacting and isolated galaxies on Hi fraction main sequence (HIMS, left panel) and star forming main sequence (SFMS, right panel). The primary galaxies are shown as large blue circles while the secondary galaxies are shown as small gray circles. The isolated …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The rotated residual maps of the interacting systems. The gray contour encloses pixels with column densities above 1018 cm−2 . Blue pixels indicate positive residuals, while red ones indicate negative residuals. The blue and red contours show the values of positive and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The comparison between disorder parameters of the interacting systems and those of the controls. Top row: The fraction of positive pixels at two ends of the system ( 𝑓 + 12) and outside the Hi disks ( 𝑓 + 123). Second row:The fraction of fluxes at two ends of the syste…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlations between disorder parameters and properties of interaction. Panel (a): The anti-correlation between Δ(𝑆) and Δ𝑉los. Panel (b): The correlation between Δ(𝐿) and log 𝑀∗,sec/𝑀∗,prim. The Pearson R coefficients and p-values are shown in the upper corners with t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The anti-correlations between (corrected) Hi excess and different disorder parameters. Larger blue circles represent primary galaxies and smaller gray ones represent secondary galaxies. The p-values of correlations for primary (blue) and secondary (gray) galaxies are s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The median profiles of Hi surface density ratio. Solid lines are used for interacting galaxies and dashed lines for the controls. The profiles of primary and secondary galaxies are plotted in blue and red, respectively. The shaded regions represent the uncertainties (1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The gas surface density profiles of the primary galaxies and the corresponding controls. Panel (a): The median H2 surface density profiles compared to THINGS galaxies (Leroy et al. 2008). Panel (b): The median H2 surface density profiles of the star formation enhanced…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    S., Tissera P

    Alonso M. S., Tissera P. B., Coldwell G., Lambas D. G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08002.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.352.1081A 352, 1081

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Bacchini C., Fraternali F., Iorio G., Pezzulli G., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..64B 622, A64

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834382

  4. [4]

    Bacchini C., Fraternali F., Pezzulli G., Marasco A., Iorio G., Nipoti C., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A.127B 632, A127

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936559

  5. [5]

    Bacchini C., Fraternali F., Pezzulli G., Marasco A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038962 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A.125B 644, A125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038962 2020

  6. [6]

    G., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..486B 322, 486

    Barnes D. G., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..486B 322, 486

    work page arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    J., Geller M

    Barton E. J., Geller M. J., Kenyon S. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...530..660B 530, 660

    doi:10.1086/308392 2000

  8. [8]

    Bigiel F., Leroy A., Walter F., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2846B 136, 2846

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 2008

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    L., Gilbank D

    Bok J., Blyth S. L., Gilbank D. G., Elson E. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..582B 484, 582

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Bustamante S., Sparre M., Springel V., Grand R. J. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3381B 479, 3381

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Patton D

    Bustamante S., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Sparre M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3469B 494, 3469

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Cao C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222...16C 222, 16

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Catinella B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..875C 476, 875

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Chown R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5192C 484, 5192

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Combes F., 1978, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978A&A....65...47C 65, 47

    1978

  8. [16]

    M., Fraternali F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.3021D 451, 3021

    Di Teodoro E. M., Fraternali F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.3021D 451, 3021

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1877E 135, 1877

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., Baldry I. K., Mendel J. T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17076.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.1514E 407, 1514

    2010

  11. [19]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2043E 418, 2043

    2011

  12. [20]

    L., Mendel J

    Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3627E 435, 3627

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Fertig D., Rosenberg J

    Ellison S. L., Fertig D., Rosenberg J. L., Nair P., Simard L., Torrey P., Patton D. R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..221E 448, 221

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Catinella B., Cortese L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3447E 478, 3447

    Ellison S. L., Catinella B., Cortese L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3447E 478, 3447

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Sundin M., Elmegreen B., Sundelius B., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...244...52E 244, 52

    Elmegreen D. M., Sundin M., Elmegreen B., Sundelius B., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...244...52E 244, 52

    1991

  16. [24]

    Fouque P., Bottinelli L., Gouguenheim L., Paturel G., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...349....1F 349, 1

    1990 doi

  17. [25]

    Fujita Y., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...509..587F 509, 587

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Lara-L \'o pez M

    Gardu \ n o L. E., Lara-L \'o pez M. A., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hopkins A. M., Owers M. S., Pimbblet K. A., Holwerda B. W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2969G 501, 2969

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Y., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..141G 582, 141

    Gnedin O. Y., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..141G 582, 141

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...49H 861, 49

    Haynes M. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...49H 861, 49

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Heald G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A.118H 526, A118

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    T., Thornley M

    Helfer T. T., Thornley M. D., Regan M. W., Wong T., Sheth K., Vogel S. N., Blitz L., Bock D. C. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..145..259H 145, 259

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Cluver M

    Hess K. M., Cluver M. E., Yahya S., Leisman L., Serra P., Lucero D. M., Passmoor S. S., Carignan C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..957H 464, 957

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    E., van Gorkom J

    Hibbard J. E., van Gorkom J. H., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....111..655H 111, 655

    1996 doi

  25. [33]

    Hickson P., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255..382H 255, 382

    1982 doi

  26. [34]

    K., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...325..473H 325, 473

    Huchtmeier W. K., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...325..473H 325, 473

    1997

  27. [35]

    A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429..618I 429, 618

    Irwin J. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429..618I 429, 618

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    Janowiecki S., Catinella B., Cortese L., Saintonge A., Wang J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1982J 493, 1982

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..78J 632, A78

    Jones M. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..78J 632, A78

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    G., Tissera P

    Lambas D. G., Tissera P. B., Alonso M. S., Coldwell G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07179.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1189L 346, 1189

    2003

  31. [39]

    G., Alonso S., Mesa V., O'Mill A

    Lambas D. G., Alonso S., Mesa V., O'Mill A. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A..45L 539, A45

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    Lee-Waddell K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2945L 460, 2945

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..157L 152, 157

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W

    Leroy A. K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2782L 136, 2782

    2008 doi

  35. [44]

    K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.4670L 137, 4670

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.4670L 137, 4670

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

    K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...24L 244, 24

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...24L 244, 24

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..96M 540, A96

    Martinez-Badenes V., Lisenfeld U., Espada D., Verdes-Montenegro L., Garc \' a-Burillo S., Leon S., Sulentic J., Yun M. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..96M 540, A96

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    C., 2004, in Duc P.-A., Braine J., Brinks E., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Mihos J. C., 2004, in Duc P.-A., Braine J., Brinks E., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 217, Recycling Intergalactic and Interstellar Matter. p. 390 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0401557 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401557

    2004 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    Moon J.-S., An S.-H., Yoon S.-J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882...14M 882, 14

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    H., Kim W.-T., Lee H

    Oh S. H., Kim W.-T., Lee H. M., Kim J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683...94O 683, 94

    2008 doi

  41. [50]

    Pan H.-A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..132P 868, 132

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    Pan H.-A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab311c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..119P 881, 119

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Pearson S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1827P 459, 1827

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    J., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...285..833R 285, 833

    Rand R. J., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...285..833R 285, 833

    1994

  45. [54]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1749S 462, 1749

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...22S 233, 22

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..136S 795, 136

    Schechtman-Rook A., Bershady M. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..136S 795, 136

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    Schruba A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/6/138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143..138S 143, 138

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Ellison S

    Scudder J. M., Ellison S. L., Torrey P., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21749.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..549S 426, 549

    2012

  50. [59]

    M., Ellison S

    Scudder J. M., Ellison S. L., Momjian E., Rosenberg J. L., Torrey P., Patton D. R., Fertig D., Mendel J. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3719S 449, 3719

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    Serra P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1922S 448, 1922

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Li R., Zhuang M.-Y., Xie Y., Li Z., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf21a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..104S 870, 104

    Shangguan J., Ho L. C., Li R., Zhuang M.-Y., Xie Y., Li Z., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf21a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..104S 870, 104

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    Sheth K., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/657638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122.1397S 122, 1397

    2010 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Wagstaff P., Struck C., Soria R., Dunn B., Swartz D., Giroux M

    Smith B. J., Wagstaff P., Struck C., Soria R., Dunn B., Swartz D., Giroux M. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..169S 158, 169

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    Sorai K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASJ...71S..14S 71, S14

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    H., Richter P., Ellison S

    Sparre M., Whittingham J., Damle M., Hani M. H., Richter P., Ellison S. L., Pfrommer C., Vogelsberger M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2720S 509, 2720

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Ellison S

    Thorp M. D., Ellison S. L., Simard L., S \'a nchez S. F., Antonio B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..55T 482, L55

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Toomre A., Toomre J., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..623T 178, 623

    1972 doi

  59. [68]

    S., Perea J., del Olmo A., Ho P

    Verdes-Montenegro L., Yun M. S., Perea J., del Olmo A., Ho P. T. P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...497...89V 497, 89

    1998 doi

  60. [69]

    S., Williams B

    Verdes-Montenegro L., Yun M. S., Williams B. A., Huchtmeier W. K., Del Olmo A., Perea J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...377..812V 377, 812

    2001 doi

  61. [70]

    L., Sargent M., Coppin K

    Violino G., Ellison S. L., Sargent M., Coppin K. E. K., Scudder J. M., Mendel T. J., Saintonge A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2591V 476, 2591

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    Walter F., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Bigiel F., Kennicutt Robert C. J., Thornley M. D., Leroy A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2563W 136, 2563

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    S., Serra P., van der Hulst T., Roychowdhury S., Kamphuis P., Chengalur J

    Wang J., Koribalski B. S., Serra P., van der Hulst T., Roychowdhury S., Kamphuis P., Chengalur J. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2143W 460, 2143

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    Wang J., Catinella B., Saintonge A., Pan Z., Serra P., Shao L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab68dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...63W 890, 63

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Wang S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927...66W 927, 66

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    Wang J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..102W 944, 102

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    Wang J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...48W 968, 48

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    Weliachew L., Sancisi R., Guelin M., 1978, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978A&A....65...37W 65, 37

    1978

  69. [78]

    R., Tinker J

    Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., van den Bosch F. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..336W 432, 336

    2013 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Rood H

    Williams B. A., Rood H. J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...63..265W 63, 265

    1987 doi

  71. [80]

    F., Geller M

    Woods D. F., Geller M. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..527W 134, 527

    2007 doi

  72. [81]

    K., Wang Y., Hao L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..114Y 934, 114

    Yu Q., Fang T., Feng S., Zhang B., Xu C. K., Wang Y., Hao L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..114Y 934, 114

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    K., Yun M

    Zuo P., Xu C. K., Yun M. S., Lisenfeld U., Li D., Cao C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabd30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237....2Z 237, 2

    2018 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Buta R

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Herold G. J., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies . Springer, New York, NY (USA)

    1991

Pith tools

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