Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Rendezvous in CAVITY: Kinematics and gas properties of an isolated dwarf-dwarf merging pair in a cosmic void region

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two dwarf galaxies are merging nearly one-to-one at the centre of a cosmic void, with both components forming stars faster than comparable isolated dwarfs.

desk verdict A rare and honestly presented dwarf-dwarf merger in a void, but the 'nearly 1:1' mass ratio is anchored by a dynamical mass error bar that cannot support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15359 v2 pith:6POZU6WU submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA

Bahar Bidaran , Simon de Daniloff , Isabel Pérez , Almudena Zurita , Javier Román , María Argudo-Fernández , Daniel Espada , Tomás Ruiz-Lara
show 12 more authors
Laura Sánchez-Menguiano Rubén García-Benito Reynier F. Peletier Anna Ferré-Mateu Salvador Duarte Puertas Simon Verley Jesús Falcón-Barroso Estrella Florido Gloria Torres-Ríos Ute Lisenfeld Mónica Relaño Andoni Jiménez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesgalaxymergerscosmicvoidskinematicsstarformationratedynamicalmassintegralfieldspectroscopygas-phasemetallicity
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

The paper reports the serendipitous discovery of an isolated pair of dwarf galaxies merging almost one-to-one in the central region of a cosmic void, a setting where such mergers are rarely seen. Using resolved gas kinematics from integral-field spectroscopy and deep optical imaging, it argues that both components are rotating discs with similar dynamical masses out to a galactocentric distance of 2.9 kpc. It further claims that both dwarfs are forming stars faster than equally massive star-forming dwarf galaxies, pointing to merger-enhanced star formation, while their gas-phase metallicities remain consistent with normal star-forming dwarfs. If correct, the system shows that major dwarf-dwarf mergers can occur in the least dense cosmic environments and can be identified and studied with current instrumentation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the tilted-ring decomposition of the Hα emission-line velocity field, in which each galaxy is modelled as a set of concentric rotating rings with a fixed rotation velocity per radius. This recovers each component's rotation curve $V(R)$ despite the two galaxies being separated by only a few arcseconds against a 2.5 arcsecond beam. The rotation curve then enters the spherical dynamical-mass estimator $M_{\rm dyn}(R) = V(R)^2 R/G$, which converts the measured kinematics into enclosed mass under the assumption of spherical symmetry. A second ingredient is full spectral fitting of the stellar continuum, which provides the emission-line fluxes used for metallicities and star formation rates.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution observation that resolves each component with a beam well below their separation, or an independent geometrical constraint such as an HI velocity field, would either confirm or overturn the similar rotation curves; if the true inclinations differ from the fitted values, the dynamical masses would differ by more than the reported uncertainties. Alternatively, a numerical merger simulation seeded with the observed masses and relative velocity could show that the observed rotation curves are reproduced only when the two discs are not individually rotating as fitted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two galaxies, called components A and B, are a nearly 1:1 dwarf-dwarf merging system located at about 0.13 of the void's effective radius from its centre. The favourable line-of-sight orientation lets the authors separate the two nuclei and fit a rotating-disc model to each component's Hα velocity field; both rotation curves rise similarly, and under spherical symmetry the enclosed dynamical masses agree within the uncertainties up to 2.9 kpc ($\log(M_{\rm dyn}/M_\odot)\sim 9.6$ and $10.1$). The same analysis indicates the pair was probably two star-forming, rotating disc dwarfs before the encounter. The paper also finds no AGN signature, near-solar gas-phase metallicities, and star formation rates in both components above those of comparable star-forming dwarfs, which it interprets as evidence that the merger has enhanced star formation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the interacting components do not each retain enough disc symmetry for the tilted-ring fits to recover their true rotation, because the galaxies are separated by only a few arcseconds against a 2.5 arcsecond beam and the ongoing tidal interaction breaks disc symmetry; the recovered rotation curves and hence the similar dynamical masses depend on this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Major dwarf-dwarf mergers can take place in the centres of cosmic voids, not only in group-like environments, so void surveys should find more such pairs.
  • Both components are in a starburst phase relative to equally massive star-forming dwarfs, supporting the view that dwarf-dwarf interactions enhance star formation.
  • The similar dynamical masses and stellar masses of the two components imply a nearly 1:1 major merger, a configuration rare among isolated dwarf pairs.
  • The system's high neutral-gas-to-stellar-mass ratio and rotating discs make it a useful test case for simulations of wet dwarf mergers.
  • The absence of AGN activity in both components suggests that low-mass major mergers do not necessarily trigger black-hole growth at this stage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the merger-enhanced star formation is real, void dwarf pairs may temporarily appear as starbursting galaxies whose optical colours are indistinguishable from dwarfs in denser environments, implying that environment is secondary during the merger phase.
  • The system is a promising target for high-resolution molecular-gas follow-up: if gas is being funnelled inward, CO mapping should reveal a central concentration before coalescence.
  • A statistical survey of void dwarf pairs could test whether such 1:1 mergers are recurrent in voids or whether this pair is an outlier triggered by a past three-body encounter.
  • The retrograde, equal-mass configuration offers a clean laboratory for numerical merger simulations aimed at explaining the observed tidal tails and the survival of rotating discs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper reports the serendipitous discovery of a merging pair of dwarf galaxies (CAVITY35843 and CAVITY35844) near the center of a cosmic void, studied with CAVITY PPAK-IFU spectroscopy and deep INT imaging. Using pPXF full spectral fitting, the authors derive gas and stellar kinematics, emission-line fluxes, gas-phase metallicities via the N2 index, SFRs from Hα, and ionisation diagnostics from BPT diagrams. They separate the two components along a high-velocity-dispersion line and fit tilted-ring rotation curves with 3DBAROLO, then use Eq. (1) to compute enclosed dynamical masses. The central claim is that both components have similar dynamical masses within galactocentric distances of up to 2.9 kpc, supporting a nearly 1:1 merger, and that both components show elevated SFRs compared with equally massive star-forming dwarf galaxies, indicating merger-enhanced star formation. The paper also reports no AGN signature, gas-phase metallicities consistent with the mass-metallicity relation, and no significant g-r colour difference relative to merging dwarfs in denser environments. The authors speculate that the merger may have been triggered by the dynamics of the void or by a past three-body encounter with the nearby dwarf CAVITY38680.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this would be one of the first resolved studies of a roughly equal-mass dwarf-dwarf merger in the center of a cosmic void, offering a clean environment for separating merger-driven from environment-driven evolution. The paper's strengths include the detailed description of the data and methods, the honesty of the limitations discussion in Section 4.2, and the explicit tabulation of 3DBAROLO input parameters in Appendix B, which supports reproducibility. The qualitative results—an interacting pair with tidal tails, co-rotating gas and stars, starburst-level specific SFR, and absence of AGN—are well supported by the data. However, the central quantitative claim of a nearly 1:1 merger is not robust to the uncertainties quoted for the dynamical masses, and the corroborating stellar-mass estimates are undermined by the acknowledged difficulty of fitting the stellar continuum in an emission-line-dominated system. As a case study of a rare environment, the paper is valuable, but the strength of its conclusions exceeds what the current error bars can support, and the mass-ratio claim needs to be revised or re-framed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3, Eq. (1)] The dynamical-mass comparison that underlies the 'nearly 1:1 merger' claim is not supported by the quoted uncertainties. Table 3 lists log(Mdyn/Msun) = 9.60 ± 2.2 for component A and 10.10 ± 0.1 for component B. A 1σ error of ±2.2 dex corresponds to a factor of ~160 in mass, so the two components are consistent with mass ratios ranging from strongly minor to strongly major, while the central values differ by 0.5 dex. The statement in Section 4.2 that 'this test allowed us to confirm the hypothesis of a nearly 1:1 merger within the error bars' is logically problematic: an interval that merely contains the 1:1 hypothesis does not confirm it. Combined with the authors' own characterization of the 3DBAROLO decomposition as 'fundamentally risky' and the manual fine-tuning of initial parameters documented in Appendix B, the dynamical masses should be presented as order-of-magnitude estimates. The abstract and Section 5.1 should either be substantially caveated or the 'similar dynamical masses within 2.9 kpc' claim should be removed from the headline results.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 3, Section 5.1] The stellar-mass estimates used to corroborate the 1:1 mass ratio and to interpret the SFR excess are not reliable. The paper states in Section 3 that the spectra are 'heavily dominated by emission lines whose presence makes analysis of the underlying stellar component challenging and unreliable,' yet Table 3 lists pPXF stellar masses of 9.3 and 9.5 for components A and B without error bars. These values are inconsistent with the MPA-JHU catalog value of 8.86 for component A quoted in Table 1, a 0.44 dex discrepancy that is not discussed. The mass-metallicity argument in Section 5.1, based on metallicities of 8.55 vs 8.51, cannot constrain the mass ratio given the ~0.2 dex systematic uncertainty of the N2 calibration and the intrinsic scatter of the mass-metallicity relation. Because the stellar masses are the only independent check on the dynamical-mass ratio, the paper's near-equal-mass conclusion lacks robust supporting evidence.
  3. [Section 4.5] The claimed SFR excess is not presented with a well-defined comparison sample. The text compares the integrated log(SFR) of the system (0.61) and of components A and B (0.38 and 0.15) with log(SFR) ≈ -0.5 from Vilella-Rojo et al. (2021) quoted for 'star-forming dwarf galaxies with comparable stellar masses,' but it does not specify the stellar mass range or selection of that comparison sample. Given the uncertainty in the stellar masses used in this paper (Major comment 2), the reader cannot assess whether the comparison is against equally massive dwarfs or substantially less massive ones. Please provide the stellar-mass distribution of the comparison sample and quantify how the uncertainty in the system's stellar mass affects the significance of the claimed SFR excess.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The [SII] λ6716 flux for Component A is listed as 3112.8 ± 3.5 (×10^-16 erg/s/cm2), which is about a factor of ten larger than the total-system flux (510.5) and than Component B (172.7); this appears to be a typo, likely 311.28 or 31.28, and should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript inconsistently uses both 'CAVITY' and 'CA VITY' (with a space); please standardize to the survey's official spelling.
  3. [Section 4.5] The juxtaposition of 'The average log(SFR) over all the spaxels with S/N>15 in this system is -1.47' and 'The integrated SFR... is log(SFR)=0.61' is initially confusing; a sentence explaining that the average of per-spaxel logarithmic values differs from the logarithm of the summed flux would help.
  4. [Figure 8] The y-axis label of the bottom panel, 'normalized number of interacting dwarf pairs,' is vague; please clarify what normalization is applied.
  5. [Appendix B, Table B.1] The output position angle for component A changes from an input of 11 degrees to 43.8 degrees, a large shift; a brief comment on how this affects the derived rotation curve and dynamical mass would improve the reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central quantities (dynamical masses, SFR, metallicity) are measured through standard external calibrations and compared with independent literature samples, so any concerns are about data quality, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Dynamical masses come from rotation velocities measured with 3DBAROLO and entered into the standard relation Mdyn = V^2 R / G (Eq. 1); the velocities are not defined in terms of the masses, and the comparison of the two components is an output, not an input. SFR and metallicity use the external Kennicutt (1998) and Pettini & Pagel (2004) calibrations applied to independently measured H-alpha and N2 fluxes. The comparison samples (Vilella-Rojo et al. 2021; Duarte Puertas et al. 2017; Paudel et al. 2018; Curti et al. 2020) are external to the paper, so the claims of enhanced SFR, consistent metallicity, and unremarkable g-r color are tested against outside data rather than against the same fitted values. The 3DBAROLO decomposition is explicitly acknowledged as 'fundamentally risky' and dependent on an assumption of symmetry (Section 4.2); this is a stated model-fitting limitation and a correctness risk, not a case where a prediction is forced by construction. Self-citations to the CAVITY survey and pipeline (e.g., Perez et al. 2024; Garcia-Benito et al. 2024) provide data provenance and reduction details; they do not carry the load of any derived physical result. The stellar masses used as supporting evidence for the 1:1 mass ratio are themselves recognized by the authors as approximations in a gas-dominated, entangled system, so the mass-ratio claim is weaker than presented, but weakness is not circularity. Overall, no step in the paper reduces to its own input or to a self-citation chain.

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

The analysis is observational; the main model inputs are the 3DBAROLO disc assumptions and the S/N and radius cuts. No new physical entities are postulated; the speculative triggers (void flow or three-body encounters) are not fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • 3DBAROLO fitted and input geometric parameters (vrot, vdisp, inc, pa, xpos, ypos, z0, radsep, nradii) = Appendix B: inputs vrot 75/150 km/s, inc 43/50 deg, pa 11/60 deg, z0=1 arcsec; outputs vrot 81.8/164.2 km/s, pa…
    Initial values come from isophote fits and kinematic maps but were manually fine-tuned over several runs; these choices propagate into the rotation curves and thus into the dynamical masses.
  • Radial cutoff for dynamical mass comparison = 5 arcsec (2.9 kpc)
    The conclusion of similar masses is restricted to this radius; beyond it spaxels have S/N < 15 and the authors exclude them.
  • S/N threshold for spaxel selection = 15
    Hand-chosen continuum S/N cut applied to most flux, metallicity, and SFR maps; it controls which regions enter integrated spectra and could bias integrated SFR if the excluded outskirts differ.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Equation 1 assumes spherical symmetry for the dynamical mass estimate (Mdyn = V^2 R / G)
    Used in Section 4.2 to convert rotation curves into enclosed masses; a flattened disc would bias the estimate.
  • domain assumption Each interacting component is an axisymmetric, rotating, disky system that 3DBAROLO can model with tilted rings
    Central to separating the two galaxies and deriving rotation curves; the authors call it 'fundamentally risky' in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Gas emission lines are single Gaussians
    Adopted in pPXF fits; double-Gaussian fits failed, but the authors note the spectral resolution (R ~ 850) is too coarse to resolve components.
  • domain assumption Standard cosmology and distance
    Flat LCDM with H0 = 69.6 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M = 0.286; distance 124.3 Mpc from Pan et al. (2012) used for luminosities.
  • domain assumption Empirical calibrations: N2 metallicity (Pettini & Pagel 2004) and Kennicutt (1998) SFR from H-alpha
    Both carry about 0.2 dex systematic uncertainties; adopted without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rendezvous in CAVITY: Kinematics and gas properties of an isolated dwarf-dwarf merging pair in a cosmic void region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6POZU6WU

@misc{pith2026250415359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rendezvous in CAVITY: Kinematics and gas properties of an isolated dwarf-dwarf merging pair in a cosmic void region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6POZU6WU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15359}
}
abstract

Galaxy mergers are pivotal events in the evolutionary history of galaxies, with their impact believed to be particularly significant in dwarf galaxies. We report the serendipitous identification of an isolated merging dwarf system with a total stellar mass of M$_{\rm \star}$$\sim$10$^{9.7}$M$_{\rm \odot}$, located in the centre of a cosmic void. This system is one of the rare examples, and possibly the first, of merging dwarf galaxy pairs studied within the central region of a cosmic void. Using CAVITY PPAK-IFU data combined with deep optical broadband imaging from the Isaac Newton Telescope, we analysed the kinematics and ionized gas properties of each dwarf galaxy in the system by employing a full spectral fitting technique. The orientation of this merging pair relative to the line of sight allowed us to determine the dynamical mass of each component, showing that both had similar dynamical masses within galactocentric distances of up to 2.9 kpc. While the gas-phase metallicity of both components is consistent with that of star-forming dwarf galaxies, the star formation rates observed in both components exceed those typically reported for equally massive star-forming dwarf galaxies. This indicates that the merger has presumably contributed to enhancing star formation. Furthermore, we found no significant difference in the optical g-r colour of this merging pair compared to other merging dwarf pairs across different environments. While most merging events occur in group-like environments with high galaxy density and the tidal influence of a host halo, and isolated mergers typically involve galaxies with significant mass differences, the identified merging pair does not follow these patterns. We speculate that the global dynamics of the void or past three-body encounters involving components of this pair and a nearby dwarf galaxy might have triggered this merging event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interacting pair of CAVITY35843, 35844, and their neighbour. Panel A: Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) deep optical image of CAV￾ITY35843 and CAVITY35844 (marked with an orange box) and CAVITY38680 (marked with a green box) in SDSS r-band filter. Panel B: Zoom-in view of CAVITY38680 using DECaLS data. This dwarf galaxy is located at a projected distance of 340 kpc from CAVITY35844. Panel C: Zoom-in view of CAVITY35843 a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observed IFU data. Panel A: g-band surface brightness map of CAVITY35843 and 35844, same as panel D of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas and stellar kinematic maps of the merging pair. In the left-hand and middle panels, gas radial velocity (top) and velocity dispersion (bottom) maps derived from [OIII]λ5007 and Hα emission lines are shown, respectively. In the right-hand panel stellar radial velocity (top) and velocity dispersion (bottom) maps are shown. In all panels, only spaxels with S/N > 15 are shown. Contours are similar to [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rotating disks in the merging dwarfs. Top panel: Rotational ve￾locity of each separated component derived using 3DBAROLO. Both com￾ponents show a similar radial gradient of rotational velocity by tracing the Hα emission line. We note that results beyond ∼ 5 arcsec are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emission line maps. From left to right, maps of Hβ, [OIII]λ5007, and Hα fluxes. All the emission lines shown here are corrected for optical dust attenuation, and contours are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baldwin, Phillips and Terlevich diagrams using flux measured for each spaxel with S/N > 15 in both components of the merging system. In both panels, Kewley et al. (2001) theoretical division is traced with a gray dashed-dot line. The empirical division of Kauffmann et …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gas-metallicity and SFR maps. Top panel: Map of oxygen abun￾dance as a proxy of gas-phase metallicity. Bottom panel: Map of SFR. Only spaxels with S/N>15, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison with other merging systems. Top panel: Compar￾ison of the g-r colour of interacting or merging dwarf galaxies from the Paudel et al. (2018) sample (shown with filled and empty black cir￾cle symbols for isolated and non-isolated cases, respectively) with the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

    2015

  2. [2]

    Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., Padilla, N., & Lambas, D. G. 2012, A&A, 539, A46

    2012

  3. [3]

    C., Evans, N

    Amorisco, N. C., Evans, N. W., & van de Ven, G. 2014, Nature, 507, 335

    2014

  4. [4]

    2016, ApJ, 826, L27 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

    Annibali, F., Nipoti, C., Ciotti, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L27 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110

    2016

  5. [5]

    J., Allende Prieto, C., & Kiselman, D

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., Allende Prieto, C., & Kiselman, D. 2004, A&A, 417, 751 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2004

  6. [6]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  7. [7]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, L10

    Bekki, K. 2008, MNRAS, 388, L10

    2008

  8. [8]

    M., & van Gorkom, J

    Beygu, B., Kreckel, K., van de Weygaert, R., van der Hulst, J. M., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2013, AJ, 145, 120

    2013

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 666, A161

    Bik, A., Östlin, G., Hayes, M., Melinder, J., & Menacho, V . 2022, A&A, 666, A161

    2022

  2. [10]

    D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al

    Blum, R. D., Burleigh, K., Dey, A., et al. 2016, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 228, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #228, 317.01

    2016

  3. [11]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2014, A&A Rev., 22, 74

    2014

  4. [12]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 Calderón-Castillo, P., Nagar, N. M., Yi, S. K., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A151 Calderón-Castillo, P. & Smith, R. 2024, A&A, 691, A82

    2004

  5. [13]

    R., Dotti, M., V olonteri, M., et al

    Capelo, P. R., Dotti, M., V olonteri, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4437

    2017

  6. [14]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  7. [15]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    2004

  8. [16]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  9. [17]

    J., Peletier, R

    Cenarro, A. J., Peletier, R. F., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 664

    2007

  10. [18]

    N., Pustilnik, S

    Chengalur, J. N., Pustilnik, S. A., & Egorova, E. S. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2342 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687

    2017

  11. [19]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168

    2000

  12. [20]

    S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    Coleman, M., Da Costa, G. S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 832

    2004

  13. [21]

    M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al

    Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 53

    2024

  14. [22]

    M., González Delgado, R

    Conrado, A. M., González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A98

    2024

  15. [23]

    J., Bershady, M

    Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., & Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183

    2003

  16. [24]

    M., van de Weygaert, R., Aubert, M., et al

    Courtois, H. M., van de Weygaert, R., Aubert, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A38 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Caldwell, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, L35

    2023

  17. [25]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 de Gasperin, F., Intema, H

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 de Gasperin, F., Intema, H. T., & Frail, D. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5008

    2020

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 115

    Deason, A., Wetzel, A., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2014, ApJ, 794, 115

    2014

  19. [27]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785 Di Teodoro, E

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785 Di Teodoro, E. M. & Fraternali, F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3021 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A111 Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J. M., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A71

    2009

  20. [28]

    & Renaud, F

    Duc, P.-A. & Renaud, F. 2013, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Ver- lag, ed. J. Souchay, S. Mathis, & T. Tokieda, V ol. 861, 327

    2013

  21. [29]

    A., Crone Odekon, M., et al

    Durbala, A., Finn, R. A., Crone Odekon, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 271

    2020

  22. [30]

    L., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L

    Ellison, S. L., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3447

    2018

  23. [31]

    L., Mendel, J

    Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3627

    2013

  24. [32]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95

    2010

  25. [33]

    2023, A&A, 677, A179

    Gao, Y ., Gu, Q., Liu, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A179

    2023

  26. [34]

    K., Carigi, L., et al

    Garay-Solis, Y ., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Carigi, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 880 García-Benito, R., Jiménez, A., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2410.08265

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1

    2024

  28. [36]

    W., Spitler, L

    Graham, A. W., Spitler, L. R., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 121

    2012

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 669, A23

    Grajales-Medina, D., Argudo-Fernández, M., Vásquez-Bustos, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A23

    2023

  30. [38]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26

    2015

  31. [39]

    Hibbard, J. E. & Mihos, J. C. 1995, AJ, 110, 140

    1995

  32. [40]

    F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 202

    2010

  33. [41]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168

    2009

  34. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  35. [43]

    2020, MN- RAS, 493, 1982

    Janowiecki, S., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., Saintonge, A., & Wang, J. 2020, MN- RAS, 493, 1982

    2020

  36. [44]

    E., Greco, J

    Kado-Fong, E., Greene, J. E., Greco, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 103

    2020

  37. [45]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  38. [46]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  39. [47]

    C., Hao, C.-N., Calzetti, D., et al

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Hao, C.-N., Calzetti, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1672

    2009

  40. [48]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    2001

  41. [49]

    E., Molina, M., Deller, A

    Kimbro, E., Reines, A. E., Molina, M., Deller, A. T., & Stern, D. 2021, ApJ, 912, 89

    2021

  42. [50]

    L., Knebe, A., et al

    Klimentowski, J., Łokas, E. L., Knebe, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1899

    2010

  43. [51]

    Knebe, A., Power, C., Gill, S. P. D., & Gibson, B. K. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 741

    2006

  44. [52]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 4

    2011

  45. [53]

    G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A

    Lambas, D. G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A. L. 2012, A&A, 539, A45

    2012

  46. [54]

    K., & Binggeli, B

    Lisker, T., Grebel, E. K., & Binggeli, B. 2006, AJ, 132, 497

    2006

  47. [55]

    A., Kaviraj, S., et al

    Martin, G., Jackson, R. A., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4937

    2021

  48. [56]

    Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J. E. G., Dubois, Y ., & Pichon, C. 2018, MN- RAS, 480, 2266 Martínez-Delgado, D., Cooper, A. P., Román, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A141 Martínez-Delgado, D., Romanowsky, A. J., Gabany, R. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, L24

    2018

  49. [57]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  50. [58]

    G., Alonso, M

    Michel-Dansac, L., Lambas, D. G., Alonso, M. S., & Tissera, P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L82 Mi´ci´c, M., Holmes, O. J., Wells, B. N., & Irwin, J. A. 2023, ApJ, 944, 160

    2008

  51. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    Naab, T., Oser, L., Emsellem, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    2014

  52. [60]

    C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al

    Omori, K. C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A142

    2023

  53. [61]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1984, QJRAS, 25, 1

    1984

  54. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 630

    Pak, M., Rey, S.-C., Lisker, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 630

    2014

  55. [63]

    C., V ogeley, M

    Pan, D. C., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., Choi, Y .-Y ., & Park, C. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 926

    2012

  56. [64]

    & Sengupta, C

    Paudel, S. & Sengupta, C. 2017, ApJ, 849, L28

    2017

  57. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 66

    Paudel, S., Smith, R., Duc, P.-A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 66

    2017

  58. [66]

    J., Calderón-Castillo, P., & Duc, P.-A

    Paudel, S., Smith, R., Yoon, S. J., Calderón-Castillo, P., & Duc, P.-A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 36

    2018

  59. [67]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2001, ApJ, 557, 495 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21 Pérez, I., Verley, S., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A213

    2001

  60. [68]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59

    2004

  61. [69]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168

    2004

  62. [70]

    E., Orr, M

    Porter, L. E., Orr, M. E., Burkhart, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3555

    2022

  63. [71]

    M., Collins, M

    Rich, R. M., Collins, M. L. M., Black, C. M., et al. 2012, Nature, 482, 192

    2012

  64. [72]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 222 Rodríguez-Medrano, A

    Rieder, S., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., Beygu, B., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 222 Rodríguez-Medrano, A. M., Springel, V ., Stasyszyn, F. A., & Paz, D. J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2822

    2013

  65. [73]

    H., Lockhart, I

    Rogstad, D. H., Lockhart, I. A., & Wright, M. C. H. 1974, ApJ, 193, 309 Román, J., Sánchez-Alarcón, P. M., Knapen, J. H., & Peletier, R. 2023, A&A, 671, L7 Román, J., Trujillo, I., & Montes, M. 2020, A&A, 644, A42

    1974

  66. [74]

    Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Tissera, P., Lagos, C. d. P., Paillas, E., & Padilla, N. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 712

    2022

  67. [75]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Monelli, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962

    2021

  68. [76]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267 Article number, page 14 of 17 Bahar Bidaran et al.: An isolated merging pair of dwarf galaxies in void Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jiménez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703

    2007

  69. [77]

    L., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1297

    2014

  70. [78]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJ, 622, L9

    2005

  71. [79]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 2

    Stierwalt, S., Besla, G., Patton, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 2

    2015

  72. [80]

    2024, A&A, 681, A8

    Subramanian, S., Mondal, C., & Kalari, V . 2024, A&A, 681, A8

    2024

  73. [81]

    2024, A&A, 686, A40

    Sureshkumar, U., Durkalec, A., Pollo, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A40

    2024

  74. [82]

    D., Ellison, S

    Thorp, M. D., Ellison, S. L., Simard, L., Sánchez, S. F., & Antonio, B. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L55

    2019

  75. [83]

    B., Domínguez-Tenreiro, R., Scannapieco, C., & Sáiz, A

    Tissera, P. B., Domínguez-Tenreiro, R., Scannapieco, C., & Sáiz, A. 2002, MN- RAS, 333, 327

    2002

  76. [84]

    J., Helmi, A., et al

    Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J., Helmi, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L119

    2004

  77. [85]

    1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed

    Toomre, A. 1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B. M. Tinsley & D. C. Larson, Richard B. Gehret, 401

    1977

  78. [86]

    & Toomre, J

    Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

    1972

  79. [87]

    H., Moustakas, J., Gonzalez, A

    Tran, K.-V . H., Moustakas, J., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, L17

    2008

  80. [88]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898 van de Weygaert, R. & Platen, E. 2011, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 41–66 van der Walt, S., Colbert, ...

    2004 arXiv

  81. [89]

    F., & Beckman, J

    Vazdekis, A., Casuso, E., Peletier, R. F., & Beckman, J. E. 1996, ApJS, 106, 307

    1996

  82. [90]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

    Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., Röck, B., & Falcón-Barroso, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

    2016

  83. [91]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639

    Vazdekis, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639

    2010

  84. [92]

    A., Shetrone, M

    Venn, K. A., Shetrone, M. D., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 102

    2012

  85. [93]

    2021, A&A, 650, A68

    Vilella-Rojo, G., Logroño-García, R., López-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A68

    2021

  86. [94]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  87. [95]

    R., Deason, A

    Wetzel, A. R., Deason, A. J., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 49

    2015

  88. [96]

    & Bekki, K

    Yozin, C. & Bekki, K. 2012, ApJ, 756, L18

    2012

  89. [97]

    2020, ApJ, 891, L23

    Zhang, H.-X., Paudel, S., Smith, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, L23

    2020

  90. [98]

    2021, MN- RAS, 500, 2359 Article number, page 15 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Zurita, A., Florido, E., Bresolin, F., Pérez-Montero, E., & Pérez, I. 2021, MN- RAS, 500, 2359 Article number, page 15 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main 10 0 10 X [arcsec] 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 Y [arcsec] V[OIII]5007 10 0 10 X [arcsec] 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 VH 10 0 10 X [arcsec] 1...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.