Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 86 references

ALMA-JELLY I: High Resolution CO(2-1) Observations of Ongoing Ram Pressure Stripping in NGC 4858 Reveal Asymmetrical Gas Tail Formation and Fallback

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Coma cluster galaxy's ram pressure wind creates an asymmetric molecular tail, and some of the gas it pushes out falls back inward.

desk verdict Solid single-galaxy ALMA study of ram-pressure stripping in NGC 4858; the fallback claim is plausible but rests on the near-side tail geometry, which has dust support but is not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07262 v1 pith:ZNICUTYM submitted 2025-06-08 astro-ph.GA

Harrison J. Souchereau , Jeffrey D.P. Kenney , Pavel Jachym , Ming Sun , William J. Cramer , Masafumi Yagi , Alessandro Boselli , Elias Brinks
show 8 more authors
Francoise Combes Luca Cortese Boris Deshev Matteo Fossati Romana Grossova Rongxin Luo Jan Palous Tom C. Scott
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords rampressurestrippingjellyfishgalaxiesmoleculargastailsgalaxyclustersComaclusterNGC4858kinematicsCO(2-1)observations
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 uses new high-resolution maps of CO(2-1) carbon monoxide emission from the Coma cluster galaxy NGC 4858 to argue that a strong, highly inclined ram pressure wind is stripping the galaxy, with an estimated disk-wind angle of $\phi_{DW} = 75^{+10}_{-27}$ degrees. The central claim is that rotation and ram pressure together produce an asymmetric inner gas tail: almost all molecular gas beyond the truncated disk sits in the quadrant that is rotating into the wind. The velocity data show both clumps being accelerated outward by the wind and clumps that were pushed out earlier and are now falling back toward the disk. The result matters because most ram pressure stripping events are expected to be highly inclined, and the balance between stripping and fallback controls how much gas a galaxy actually loses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the ram pressure torque $\vec{\tau} = \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_{\rm ram}$ acting on molecular clouds in a rotating disk and a four-quadrant azimuthal decomposition of CO flux and velocity residuals aligned with the wind and rotation directions. The torque argument explains why the side rotating into the wind loses angular momentum and is driven inward, while the side rotating with the wind gains angular momentum and is driven outward. The quadrant analysis places nearly all outer CO gas in the trailing-side, rotating-into-wind quadrant, and the residual velocity map reveals the blueshifted stripping signatures and the redshifted fallback feature. A differential ram pressure ratio $R = 1 - (V_{\rm ICM} - v)^2/(V_{\rm ICM} + v)^2 \approx 0.23$ quantifies the uneven wind strength across the disk.

What would settle it

Run the same wind-tunnel simulation with the tail placed behind the disk instead of in front and compare the sign of the predicted velocity residuals with the observed CO map: the paper's assignment of blueshifted gas to outward stripping and of the redshifted inner-tail feature to fallback reverses if the near-side assumption is wrong, so a geometry-independent measurement of the tail's near/far side (for example, resolved CO absorption against the radio continuum tail) would settle whether the fallback claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

NGC 4858 is undergoing strong, ongoing ram pressure at a highly inclined disk-wind angle, and this produces a distinctly asymmetric molecular tail. After subtracting a simple circular-velocity model from the CO velocity field, the paper identifies blueshifted residuals marking gas accelerated by the wind—along the southern leading edge of the disk, in northern disk clumps, and in the two “bunny ear” tail arms—and one large redshifted feature near the base of the tail that it interprets as molecular clouds falling back into the disk. More than 90% of the CO flux beyond the gas truncation radius lies in the trailing-side quadrant that rotates into the wind, and the two tail arms appear to be stripped spiral-arm segments at different stages of a four-phase inner-tail evolution. The paper concludes that ram pressure torques, which push gas outward on the side rotating with the wind and inward on the side rotating into the wind, are the mechanism that forms such asymmetric inner tails.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the stripped tail lies on the near side of the disk, in front of the stellar body, so that blueshifted residuals mean outward motion and redshifted residuals mean infall; if the tail were behind the disk, those assignments would reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In highly inclined ram pressure events, the inner gas tail should be lopsided, concentrated on the side rotating into the wind, rather than forming a symmetric head-tail structure.
  • Gas can be pushed out of the disk without escaping the galaxy; some of it falls back, so instantaneous stripping rates overestimate the mass a galaxy permanently loses.
  • The two “bunny ear” tail arms are probably spiral-arm segments stripped at different times, meaning pre-existing spiral structure steers where the inner tail develops.
  • Ram pressure torques that drive gas inward can feed the galaxy center, offering a path to enhanced nuclear activity in stripped galaxies.
  • Stellar complexes near the stripping radius can take on head-tail shapes as the wind ablates their gas, so the effects of ram pressure are visible in stellar as well as gaseous structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same torque mechanism predicts that other near-edge-on stripping events should consistently show their inner tails on the side rotating into the wind, so a survey of cluster galaxies with resolved CO maps could test whether this lopsidedness is universal.
  • Editorial inference: if the redshifted feature is truly fallback, the returning molecular gas should rejoin the star-forming disk and trigger a second, younger stellar population in that region, which resolved stellar photometry could reveal.
  • Editorial inference: the near-side placement of the tail is the hinge of the stripping-versus-fallback interpretation; a geometry measurement that placed the tail behind the disk would flip which residuals count as outward and which as inward.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents new ALMA CO(2-1) observations at ~1" resolution of the Coma cluster jellyfish galaxy NGC 4858, supplemented by Subaru H-alpha and HST broadband imaging. The authors identify an asymmetric inner molecular gas tail concentrated in the quadrant rotating into the ram-pressure wind, measure a highly inclined disk-wind angle of phi_DW = 75^{+10}_{-27}, and, after subtracting a simple circular-velocity model, report blueshifted residual-velocity features that they interpret as ram-pressure acceleration and a redshifted feature that they interpret as molecular gas falling back toward the disk. They further discuss ram-pressure torques as the driver of the asymmetric inner tail, compare the observed morphology and kinematics to wind-tunnel and sticky-particle simulations, and report head-tail morphologies in stellar complexes within the disk. The central claims are the detection of fallback in an inclined ram-pressure stripping event and the torque-driven formation of asymmetric inner tails.

Significance. The paper is observationally strong and timely. The CO(2-1) data are of high quality, and the residual-velocity analysis is accompanied by explicit robustness tests in Appendix C showing that the main non-circular features survive large changes in the assumed rotation curve. If the fallback interpretation is correct, NGC 4858 becomes one of the best nearby examples connecting inclined ram pressure, asymmetric inner-tail formation, and gas re-accretion, and it would provide direct support for torque-driven evolution seen in simulations. The multi-wavelength overlays and the comparison with Akerman et al. (2023) and Vollmer et al. (2001) strengthen the paper. The authors are also transparent about several degeneracies, such as the vertical-versus-radial ambiguity of some residual velocities and the possible contribution of pre-existing spiral structure; this transparency is a genuine strength. However, one of these degeneracies, the near-side versus far-side location of the stripped tail, is load-bearing for the headline fallback claim, and the paper's current treatment of that point is not yet fully quantitative.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6; Section 6.5; Appendix B; Eq. (A4)] The fallback interpretation of the redshifted feature ID 6 depends on the assumption, introduced at the start of Section 6, that the stripped CO tail lies on the near side of the stellar disk. The only quantitative argument against the far-side alternative is the sentence in Section 6 that a far-side tail would require a total cluster velocity above 5000 km/s; this limit is asserted rather than derived. Since Appendix A already builds the 3D geometry relating V_rad, V_pos, theta_tail, theta_maj, and inclination (Eq. A4), I ask the authors to derive the maximum allowed V_tot for a far-side tail within that framework, including the quoted uncertainties in V_pos and the tail/disk angles, or to rephrase the abstract and Section 8 fallback claim as explicitly conditional on the near-side geometry. This is load-bearing because reversing the near/far side reverses the sign of the inferred vertical and radial motions in Table 2, which would remove the fallback component of the central claim.
  2. [Section 7.2, Eq. (6)] The torque asymmetry calculation in Eq. (6) is used to support the paper's emphasis on ram-pressure torques, but the definitions of v and the orientation convention are not specified. If v is the local rotational speed, its projection onto the wind direction, rather than its full magnitude, should enter the comparison with V_ICM; the numerical value R = 0.23 should then be recomputed with that projection. The text should also state whether V_ICM is the ICM speed in the galaxy frame after any bow-shock reduction, since the following sentence allows this quantity to be reduced. Without these definitions, the quantitative strength of the torque argument is hard to evaluate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2.1] The molecular gas mass is listed as 2.0 x 10^9 M_sun in Table 1 but is derived as 1.5 +/- 0.1 x 10^9 M_sun in Section 2.1, which then uses 1.5 x 10^9 M_sun to compute M_H2/M* = 0.31; please reconcile the table value with the text value.
  2. [Section 7.1] The quoted disk-wind angle phi_DW = 75^{+10}_{-27} is asymmetric, but the text says the uncertainty on V_tot is taken to be the Coma velocity dispersion, which is a symmetric quantity; please specify how the upper and lower bounds were propagated from the uncertainty distributions, for example by Monte Carlo or analytic error propagation.
  3. [Appendix C] Please state explicitly whether the two alternative rotation curves were used with the same Vsys, inclination, position angle, and x0/y0 as the fiducial model; the text describes the comparison as a test of the rotation curve alone, but the figures show full velocity models and residual maps.
  4. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract and Section 2 contain 'complimentary' where 'complementary' is meant, and the title in the draft shows spacing artifacts such as 'ALMA-JELL Y I', 'T ail', and 'F allback'; these should be corrected in the final version.
  5. [Figure 16] The caption does not give the simulation time of each snapshot; since the text in Section 7.4 refers to a 400-500 Myr timescale, please add the epochs to the caption so the evolutionary phase comparison is quantitative.
  6. [Section 5.1 and Section 7.2] Section 5.1 quotes Vmax = 165 km/s from the Tully-Fisher relation, while Section 7.2 uses 160 km/s as the maximum rotation speed in the torque calculation; please use a single value or state which value is used in Eq. (6).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fallback claim rests on minor-axis redshifted residuals that are insensitive to the fitted rotation curve, and the near-side tail geometry is a stated assumption, not a definitional loop.

full rationale

The central claims — an asymmetric inner CO tail concentrated in the trailing-side quadrant rotating into the wind, and redshifted gas near the tail base interpreted as fallback — do not reduce by construction to the model inputs. The residual map is computed by subtracting a circular-velocity model (Section 5.1, Eq. 5) whose V_max = 165 km/s comes from the external Tully-Fisher relation and whose transition radius r_t = 2.4 kpc is fitted to the 3DBarolo data; however, the key fallback feature (ID 6) lies on the kinematic minor axis, where cos(theta) = 0 in Eq. 5, so the model velocity equals V_sys there regardless of the rotation curve shape. The paper explicitly tests a flat rotation curve and one with twice the Tully-Fisher V_max (Appendix C, Figures 18-19) and states that 'features residing along the kinematic minor axis (such as the inner-tail redshifted feature) are insensitive to any changes in the rotation curve,' so the fallback residual is not forced by the fitted parameters. The load-bearing assumption is the near-side location of the tail (Section 6: 'We assume for all of these features that the tail is in front of the disk'), which converts the observed redshift into inward fallback rather than outward motion on the far side; this is a stated geometric assumption supported by dust reddening (Figure 12) and a consistency argument on the total cluster-centric velocity, not a definitional loop, and the paper candidly notes the residual vertical/radial degeneracy ('Though we cannot determine whether vertical or radial motions are more important'). The disk-wind angle phi_DW = 75(+10/-27) is a geometric estimate (Appendix A) built from measured stellar-disk parameters, the LOFAR-determined outer tail angle, and an NFW-based total velocity with large stated uncertainties; it does not feed back into the quadrant definitions or the residual interpretation, so no self-referential loop connects it to the fallback claim. Self-citations (Cramer et al. 2021 for NGC 4921 fallback; Jachym et al. 2009 for edge-on stripping efficiency) provide comparison and simulation context but are not load-bearing, since the identification of fallback in NGC 4858 rests directly on the ALMA CO kinematics. No step in the paper makes a prediction that is equivalent to its own input by construction, and the manuscript's explicit limitation statements (velocity uncertainties in Section 7.1, vertical/radial degeneracy in Section 6.5) weigh against any concealed circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on several observational and modeling assumptions: the near-side placement of the tail, the use of a simple circular velocity model, and a cluster mass model for the total velocity. These are reasonable and mostly supported, but they are assumptions rather than derived constraints.

free parameters (1)
  • r_t (transition radius of URC rotation curve) = 2.4 kpc
    Fitted to the 3DBarolo-derived rotation curve points and used to set the shape of the circular velocity model that defines the residual velocities. Section 5.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The galaxy rotates clockwise based on the orientation of its spiral arms.
    Used to define the leading and trailing sides and to interpret which quadrant rotates into the wind. Section 3.
  • domain assumption The stripped gas tail is on the near side of the disk relative to the observer.
    Critical for translating blueshifted and redshifted residuals into outward stripping versus inward fallback. Section 6 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The radio continuum tail direction represents the local ram pressure wind direction.
    Used to define the wind angle and the quadrant boundaries. Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption The Coma cluster mass distribution follows an NFW profile with the adopted mass and concentration.
    Used to estimate the total orbital velocity of NGC 4858 and hence the disk-wind angle. Section 7.1.
  • domain assumption The pre-stripping gas motions are well described by a simple circular velocity model.
    The residual velocity analysis subtracts a URC-based circular model; residual features are tested against alternate curves in Appendix C. Section 5.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA-JELLY I: High Resolution CO(2-1) Observations of Ongoing Ram Pressure Stripping in NGC 4858 Reveal Asymmetrical Gas Tail Formation and Fallback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNICUTYM

@misc{pith2026250607262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA-JELLY I: High Resolution CO(2-1) Observations of Ongoing Ram Pressure Stripping in NGC 4858 Reveal Asymmetrical Gas Tail Formation and Fallback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNICUTYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07262}
}
abstract

We present new CO(2-1) observations (resolution $\sim1" = 460$pc) of the Coma cluster jellyfish galaxy NGC 4858 obtained from the ALMA-JELLY large program. Analyzing this data alongside complimentary Subaru H$\alpha$ and HST (F600LP / F350LP) observations, we find numerous structural and kinematic features indicative of the effects from strong, inclined ram pressure, including an asymmetric inner gas tail. We estimate a highly-inclined disk-wind angle of $\phi_{DW} = 75^{+10}_{-27}$. By subtracting a simple circular velocity model, we find (1): gas clumps that are being accelerated by ram pressure, and (2): signatures of gas clumps that had been previously pushed out of the disk but are now falling inwards. We also discuss head-tail morphologies in star complexes within the stellar disk that appear to be RPS-influenced. Lastly, we compare this galaxy to state-of-the-art galaxy ``wind tunnel'' simulations. We find that this galaxy is one of the best nearby examples of strong and inclined ram pressure gas stripping, and of gas that is perturbed by ram pressure but not fully stripped and falls back. We emphasize the importance of torques due to ram pressure in highly-inclined interactions, which help drive gas inwards on the side rotating against the wind, contributing to the formation of asymmetric inner RPS tails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The central region of the Coma cluster, with the location of NGC 4858 indicated, and shown as a zoomed-in cutout. The two BCGs in the center of Coma (NGC 4874 and NGC 4889) can be seen in the center-left of the image. The 144 MHz radio continuum tail (see Roberts et al. 2021) is shown with red contours, and the estimated plane-of-sky tail angle is displayed as the dashed line. Image from the Digitized Sky Survey (fr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HST F350LP (blue) and F600LP (red) image of NGC 4858. The green channel is an average of the red/blue channels. The background elliptical galaxy NGC 4860 can be seen in the upper left. The stellar distributions coincident with the western Hα blobs, B1 and B2, are indicated. 2024). The large physical extent of this tail provides us with the most reliable estimate for the on-sky tail angle for the galaxy, which we est… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overlay maps for NGC 4858. From the top left: (a): The Subaru Hα distribution, with contours showing the LOFAR 144 MHz radio continuum tail in red. (b): The HST 350LP image in greyscale with Hα contours in red. (c): The Subaru Hα image with ALMA CO(2-1) contours in magenta. (d): The HST greyscale image with the same ALMA CO contours. The CO contours (in multiples of the noise level σmom0 = 0.031Jy km s−1 beam−1 ) ar… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CO(2-1) moment maps of NGC 4858. Left: Moment-0 with overlaid isophotal contours to show structure. The isophotal contour levels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Isophotal analysis of the Subaru R-band image of NGC 4858. Left: From top to bottom: surface brightness (and S´ersic profile fit in grey), position angle measured from North in degrees, and ellipticity (1 − b/a), against semimajor axis in kpc. The radial profile of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Asymmetry in tail flux distributions for CO (dark blue), Hα (magenta) and LOFAR 144 MHz (red). Left: The total summed flux (top) and the asymmetry measurement (bottom) for each tracer, measured by the proportion of flux to the right (west) of the wind vector. Right: Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A schematic of the face-on view of the galaxy, with the quadrant divisions indicated. We note that the orientation of the quadrant boundaries depends on the esti￾mated plane-of-sky wind direction, not the position angle of the galaxy’s stellar disk. We also note whethe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Azimuthal analysis of the CO flux distribution of NGC 4858. Left: The flux and uncertainty contours (1σ and 3σ) as a function of ϕ is shown for each annulus. Note that the vertical scale changes between annuli. The quadrant boundaries are denoted by the different line …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Position-Velocity Diagrams (PVDs) for the major and minor axes of NGC 4858. The PVDs are centered on the optical distribution, which we indicate in all three panels with an x. The arrows indicate the direction of each PVD slice (from left to right). The width of the PV…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Velocity maps for NGC 4858. Left: The moment-1 velocity map with isovelocity contours at 10 km s−1 spacing. The PVD slices through the tail (See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Azimuthal distribution of the residual velocity map shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: PVDs through the ”bunny ear” tail components (See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A diagram outlining wind-driven torques in the case of an edge-on wind for particles on opposite sides of the galaxy, looking from above along the z-axis. The dashed grey arrows show unperturbed orbits (dashed) orbits. The solid arrows are schematics indicating possib…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: identifies in the HST F600LP image a collec￾tion of stellar complexes, coincident but close to the edge of the CO emission in the disk, with considerably differ￾ent morphologies. Three of the complexes on the side rotating against the wind (W1-W3) have distinct head￾t…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The development of an asymmetric tail due to a highly-inclined ram pressure interaction. The top row shows a general schematic of the process and the bottom two rows show this evolution in gas density in 2 different simulation types (Middle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: An overview of the NGC 4858 ram pressure interaction. Left: Projections of NGC 4858’s stellar disk normal vector (black) and estimated RPS wind (red). Grey ellipses indicate the stellar disk position in each projection. Right: Allowable disk-wind angles (and plane-of-…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The effects of applying a rotation curve that immediately flattens beyond the CO truncation radius on the velocity residuals. a) A comparison of the two rotation curves. b) The derived velocity model. c) The velocity residuals of the galaxy. d) The velocity residuals,…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    4000 \@twopowertwo=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    0 fC\ y|

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    2017

  5. [5]

    G., Moore, B., & Bower, R

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 308, 947, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02715.x

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Abramson, A., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 63, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/63 2014

  7. [7]

    M., Smith, R., & Marasco, A

    Akerman, N., Tonnesen, S., Poggianti, B. M., Smith, R., & Marasco, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d 2023

  8. [8]

    D., Prieto, C

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Prieto, C. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 12, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 207, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 3, 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 3, 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Fossati, M., et al

    Boselli, A., Cuillandre, J. C., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 587, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527795

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039046

    Boselli, A., Lupi, A., Epinat, B., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039046

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Thorp, M., et al

    Brown, T., Roberts, I. D., Thorp, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf195

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Balkowski, C., & Kotanyi, C

    Cayatte, V., van Gorkom, J. H., Balkowski, C., & Kotanyi, C. 1990, The Astronomical Journal, 100, 604, 10.1086/115545

    1990 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 4654, 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    Chen, H., Sun, M., Yagi, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 4654, 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Kenney, J

    Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1741, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e035, 10.1017/pasa.2021.18

    Cortese, L., Catinella, B., & Smith, R. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e035, 10.1017/pasa.2021.18

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Kenney, J

    Cramer, W. J., Kenney, J. D. P., Cortes, J. R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf54

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Kenney, J

    Cramer, W. J., Kenney, J. D. P., Sun, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaefff

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Kenney, J

    Cramer, W. J., Kenney, J. D. P., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1793

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Fraternali, F

    Di Teodoro, E. M., & Fraternali, F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 3021, 10.1093/mnras/stv1213

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    N., & Edge, A

    Ebeling, H., Stephenson, L. N., & Edge, A. C. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L40

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219933

    Fossati, M., Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., & Fumagalli, M. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219933

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Gallego, J., Zamorano, J., Rego, M., Alonso, O., & Vitores, A. G. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 120, 323, 10.1051/aas:1996297

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 563, L23, 10.1086/338389

    Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Mayer, L., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 563, L23, 10.1086/338389

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Boselli, A., & Yoshida, M

    Gavazzi, G., Consolandi, G., Gutierrez, M. L., Boselli, A., & Yoshida, M. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833427

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J

    Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/85

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Tomičić, N., et al

    George, K., Poggianti, B. M., Tomičić, N., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 2426, 10.1093/mnras/stac3593

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 292, 404, 10.1086/163170

    1985 doi

  25. [33]

    E., & Gott, III, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, The Astrophysical Journal, 176, 1, 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  26. [34]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a18

    Iye, M., Tadaki, K.-i., & Fukumoto, H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a18

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 226, 747, 10.1093/mnras/226.4.747

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc22

    Jian, H.-Y., Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc22

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 500, 693, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811469

    Jáchym, P., Köppen, J., Palouš, J., & Combes, F. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 500, 693, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811469

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Jáchym, P., Kenney, J. D. P., Sun, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6c

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Kenney, J. D. P., Abramson, A., & Bravo-Alfaro, H. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 59, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/59

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Kenney, J. D. P., & Koopmann, R. A. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 117, 181, 10.1086/300683

    1999 doi

  34. [42]

    Kenney, J. D. P., Wilson, C. D., Scoville, N. Z., Devereux, N. A., & Young, J. S. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 395, L79, 10.1086/186492

    1992 doi

  35. [43]

    A., & Kenney, J

    Koopmann, R. A., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 866, 10.1086/423191

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4367, 10.1093/mnras/sty1610

    Köppen, J., Jáchym, P., Taylor, R., & Palouš, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4367, 10.1093/mnras/sty1610

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3b8

    Lee, J., Kimm, T., Katz, H., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3b8

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4670, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4670

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    L., & Mamon, G

    Lokas, E. L., & Mamon, G. A. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 401, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06684.x

    2003

  41. [49]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 2994, 10.1093/mnras/stv2508

    McPartland, C., Ebeling, H., Roediger, E., & Blumenthal, K. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 2994, 10.1093/mnras/stv2508

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 54, 833, 10.1093/pasj/54.6.833

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Sekiguchi, M., et al. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 54, 833, 10.1093/pasj/54.6.833

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Serra, P., van der Hulst, T., et al

    Molnár, D. C., Serra, P., van der Hulst, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 659, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142614

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Moretti, A., Paladino, R., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9f3b

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Parkash, V., Brown, M. J. I., Jarrett, T. H., & Bonne, N. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b9

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., Gullieuszik, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa78ed

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Gullieuszik, M., Tonnesen, S., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Gullieuszik, M., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 4466, 10.1093/mnras/sty2999

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    S., & Trager, S

    Popping, G., Somerville, R. S., & Trager, S. C. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2398, 10.1093/mnras/stu991

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, adrn/gala: v1.8.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10449846

    Price-Whelan, A., Wagg, T., Sipőcz, B., et al. 2024, adrn/gala: v1.8.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10449846

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    L., et al

    Radovich, M., Poggianti, B., Jaffé, Y. L., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 486, 10.1093/mnras/stz809

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Weeren, R

    Roberts, I. D., Weeren, R. J. v., McGee, S. L., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A153, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141118

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    D., van Weeren, R

    Roberts, I. D., van Weeren, R. J., Lal, D. V., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 683, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347977

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Ebeling, H., & Sun, M

    Roediger, E., Bruggen, M., Owers, M. S., Ebeling, H., & Sun, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, L114, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu087

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10335.x

    Roediger, E., & Brüggen, M. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10335.x

    2006

  55. [63]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3849, 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    Samuel, J., Pardasani, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3849, 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    A., & Wilkinson, A

    Sellwood, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 173, 10.1088/0034-4885/56/2/001

    1993 doi

  57. [65]

    W., Röttgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., Röttgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Lucey, J

    Smith, R. J., Lucey, J. R., Hammer, D., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1417, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17253.x

    2010

  59. [67]

    J., Zahid, H

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Zahid, H. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa653e

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Manrique, A., García-Gómez, C., et al

    Solanes, J. M., Manrique, A., García-Gómez, C., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, 97, 10.1086/318672

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Downes, D., Radford, S

    Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 478, 144, 10.1086/303765

    1997 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5829, 10.1093/mnras/stad3607

    Sparre, M., Pfrommer, C., & Puchwein, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5829, 10.1093/mnras/stad3607

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 946, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/946

    Sun, M., Donahue, M., Roediger, E., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 946, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/946

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 270, 10.1038/s41550-021-01516-8

    Sun, M., Ge, C., Luo, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 270, 10.1038/s41550-021-01516-8

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6988

    Taylor, R., Köppen, J., Jáchym, P., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6988

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    Team, C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 789, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/789

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe7e2

    ---. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe7e2

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    L., & van Gorkom, J

    Tonnesen, S., Bryan, G. L., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2007, Environmentally- Driven Evolution of Simulated Cluster Galaxies , 10.1086/523034

    2007 doi

  70. [79]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4145, 10.1093/mnras/staa274

    Troncoso-Iribarren, P., Padilla, N., Santander, C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4145, 10.1093/mnras/staa274

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 661. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....54..661T

    1977

  72. [81]

    C., & Allen, R

    van der Kruit, P. C., & Allen, R. J. 1978, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 103, 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.000535

    1978

  73. [82]

    Vollmer, B., Cayatte, V., Balkowski, C., & Duschl, W. J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 561, 708, 10.1086/323368

    2001 doi

  74. [83]

    M., et al

    Vulcani, B., Moretti, A., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348135

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 232, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21188.x

    2012

  76. [85]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa68e3

    Yagi, M., Yoshida, M., Gavazzi, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa68e3

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1814, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1814

    Yagi, M., Yoshida, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1814, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1814

    2010 doi

  78. [87]

    Zhu, J., Tonnesen, S., & Bryan, G. L. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 960, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe6f

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.