Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Extreme cloud collisions in nearby barred galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 10 of 29 barred galaxies, this paper finds compact, unusually broad-lined molecular features in bar dust lanes—Milky Way EVFs seen from outside—and argues they are extreme cloud-cloud collisions in bar-driven flows.

desk verdict A useful first catalogue of extra-galactic EVF candidates, but the virial-parameter claim is partly circular and the paper overreaches when it calls them the clearest examples of cloud-cloud collisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04530 v1 pith:N3LMAFMT submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.GA

Tutku Kolcu , Mattia C. Sormani , Witold Maciejewski , Sophia K. Stuber , Eva Schinnerer , Francesca Fragkoudi , Ashley T. Barnes , Frank Bigiel
show 11 more authors
Mélanie Chevance Dario Colombo Éric Emsellem Simon C. O. Glover Jonathan D. Henshaw Ralf S. Klessen Sharon E. Meidt Justus Neumann Francesca Pinna Miguel Querejeta Thomas G. Williams
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords extendedvelocityfeaturesmolecularcloudsbarredgalaxiescloud-cloudcollisionsdustlanesvirialparameterbar-drivengasflowsCO(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 asks whether the Milky Way's "extended velocity features"—compact molecular clouds with extraordinarily broad CO lines near the Galactic centre—are unique or a generic product of galactic bars. Searching the dust lanes of 29 nearby barred galaxies in the PHANGS-ALMA CO(2-1) data, the authors find such features in 10 galaxies (34%), with 18 EVFs total. Measured virial parameters range from a few hundred to several thousand, meaning the features are far from gravitational equilibrium, and the paper argues they are best explained as cloud-cloud or stream-stream collisions with relative velocities above 100 km/s in the highly non-circular flows that bars force. Supporting evidence comes from JWST 7.7 µm images, which reveal faint gas streams hitting the dust lanes at the EVF locations, and from the near-absence of such features in a comparison sample of unbarred galaxies. If right, this turns the Milky Way's puzzling features into a clean external laboratory for studying cloud collisions and their role in star formation.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the position-position/position-velocity diagnostic map built from CO(2-1) cubes: the authors isolate the bar dust lanes in the sky plane, then search the velocity dimension for unusually broad, compact "blobs". Each candidate's properties are estimated by fitting a 2D Gaussian in the plane (radius $R_{\rm EVF}=\eta\sqrt{\sigma_x\sigma_y}$ with $\eta=1.18$) and a single Gaussian to the total spectrum (velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$, extent $\Delta v$). The virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir}=2M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm CO}$, with $M_{\rm vir}=5\sigma_v^2 R_{\rm EVF}/G$ and masses from a fixed CO-to-H$_2$ conversion, is the quantitative measure that classifies the features as out of equilibrium. A second piece of machinery is the geometric test comparing $\Delta v$ with $\sin(i)$ and bar orientation, which shows a rough correlation of $\Delta v$ with inclination and thereby supports the idea that the line width reflects the bulk velocity difference of colliding clouds rather than isotropic internal motions.

What would settle it

Resolve any one of the 18 EVFs (for example NGC 1300 F2) at high angular and spectral resolution: if the emission splits cleanly into two or more discrete clouds with narrow intrinsic line widths separated in velocity, the single-cloud virial interpretation fails, while a coherent broad component with a velocity bridge between two peaks would support the collision picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Milky Way's EVFs are not a local curiosity. Using position-position and position-velocity maps of CO(2-1) emission from the PHANGS-ALMA survey, the authors identify 18 compact, round "blobs" with unusually broad line widths in the dust lanes of 10 of 29 barred galaxies (34%); typical velocity spreads are 27–72 km/s, sizes are of order 100 pc, and masses are ~$10^{5}$–$10^{6}$ M_sun. The virial parameters, computed assuming a single Gaussian line profile, are enormous—76 to 2925—so the features are strongly super-virial and hence radically out of equilibrium. The authors conclude that the most likely origin is extreme cloud-cloud (or stream-stream) collisions with relative velocities in excess of 100 km/s driven by the bar potential, an interpretation consistent with earlier Milky Way EVF simulations and with JWST 7.7 µm images showing streams that appear to strike the dust lanes at EVF positions. They further argue that EVFs are probably the clearest examples of cloud-cloud collisions in the literature and therefore unique laboratories for studying the physics of cloud collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that each broad-line "blob" is a single coherent cloud whose Gaussian line width measures internal random motions, so the virial parameter is a true measure of equilibrium; if an aperture instead superposes two separate clouds or stream components, the broad line and the huge virial parameter are consequences of the selection, not evidence about one out-of-equilibrium object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way's EVFs are the local instance of a common bar phenomenon: roughly a third of barred galaxies show analogous broad-line features in their dust lanes.
  • External EVFs offer a clean, face-on view of cloud-cloud collisions, free of the Milky Way's line-of-sight blending, so they can be used to measure collision kinematics and rates directly.
  • Virial parameters of hundreds to thousands mean equilibrium-based cloud diagnostics do not apply at these sites; the CO emission is dominated by dynamical interaction, not by a self-gravitating cloud.
  • JWST-detected streams that hit dust lanes at EVF positions support the bar-inflow collision picture and provide a morphological handle for locating collision sites even where CO sensitivity fails.
  • The near-absence of EVFs in 12 of 13 unbarred comparison galaxies ties the phenomenon specifically to bar-driven non-circular flows rather than to ordinary spiral-arm dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested corollary: the ~34% detection fraction and the line-width distribution should be reproducible by post-processing hydrodynamical simulations of barred galaxies into synthetic CO observations; the paper does not carry out that comparison.
  • The $\Delta v$–$\sin(i)$ trend, if confirmed on a larger sample of EVFs, would become a clean geometric discriminator between collision-dominated (anisotropic, in-plane) and turbulence-dominated (isotropic) line broadening.
  • If EVF frequency scales with bar strength or gas inflow rate, EVFs could serve as a measurable external probe of how bars transport gas toward galactic centres.
  • The clumpy 7.7 µm substructure seen near roughly two-thirds of the EVFs hints that collisions may trigger star formation; deeper CO observations of one or two EVFs could test whether those clumps are gravitationally bound young clusters.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for Milky Way-like 'extended velocity features' (EVFs) in the PHANGS-ALMA CO(2-1) data cubes of 29 barred galaxies. Using position-position and position-velocity diagrams, the authors identify 18 compact, unusually broad-line CO features in 10 galaxies (34%). From single-Gaussian fits to the integrated spectra they derive velocity dispersions, radii, masses, and virial parameters (alpha_vir approximately 76-2925), which they interpret as evidence of strongly out-of-equilibrium systems, and they combine this with PHANGS-JWST 7.7 micron images to argue that EVFs are sites of stream-stream or cloud-cloud collisions with relative velocities exceeding 100 km/s in bar-driven non-circular flows. A small control sample of 13 unbarred galaxies shows only one tentative EVF-like feature.

Significance. The paper is timely and addresses a long-standing question about the origin of the Milky Way's EVFs by exploiting the external perspective enabled by PHANGS-ALMA and PHANGS-JWST. Its strengths are the homogeneous multi-galaxy sample, the direct comparison with Milky Way spectra, the inclusion of an unbarred control sample, and the use of publicly available data. If the collision interpretation survives scrutiny, the paper would provide a valuable sample of extreme collision sites and new constraints on bar-driven gas flows. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a visual selection whose completeness is unquantified and on virial parameters computed from the same single-Gaussian width that the collision model itself regards as a bulk velocity difference; these issues need to be addressed before the strong conclusions are accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (4)-(5); Section 4.1] The computation of alpha_vir uses the single-Gaussian sigma_v of the total spectrum as if it were the internal velocity dispersion of one coherent cloud. Yet the collision scenario advanced in the same paper, including the second paragraph of Section 4.1, holds that the velocity extent may be dictated by the velocity difference between the colliding clouds, and the Delta-v versus sin(i) trend in Fig. 7 is read as evidence that the velocity field is not isotropic. If sigma_v is a bulk velocity separation between unresolved components, then alpha_vir ~ 100-3000 is a near-tautological consequence of selecting broad-line regions and cannot independently demonstrate an out-of-equilibrium state. Please provide a multi-component decomposition of the spectra and compute alpha_vir from the component internal widths, or explicitly restrict the virial claim to the single-cloud idealisation and move the collision argument to other evidence.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 4, Table 2] The incidence fraction of 34% (10/29) is a headline result, but the EVF classification is entirely visual: the text states 'we visually select the EVFs' and 'this procedure is somewhat subjective'. No quantitative criterion (e.g., FWHM above a percentile of dust-lane spectra, minimum contrast, size limit) is given, and no inter-rater or repeat-measurement assessment is reported. Given that the remaining 19 galaxies 'did not show obvious features', the completeness of the sample is not characterised. Please define a reproducible selection rule or at least test how the incidence fraction changes under plausible thresholds, and report an uncertainty on the 34% value.
  3. [Section 4.1, Table 2, Abstract] The abstract and Section 5 state that relative collision velocities exceed 100 km/s, but the directly measured FWHMs in Table 2 are 27-72 km/s. Recovering the relative velocity requires a deprojection that depends on inclination and on the assumed geometry of the collision (e.g., the statement in Section 4.1 that the radial velocity dominates perpendicular to the line of nodes). No explicit deprojection formula or propagated uncertainty is given. Please state the formula used (including the role of sin(i) and PA_LON - PA_bar), justify it, and propagate errors, or soften the quantitative claim.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figs. 2 and 3] The JWST corroboration is based on visually identified 'streams' whose direction is described as 'an educated guess'. There is no quantitative definition of a stream (length, contrast, width), no test that the associations with EVFs are not chance alignments, and no kinematic confirmation because the 7.7 micron data lack velocity information. The finding is interesting, but as presented it is an impressionistic support rather than a quantitative one; please add objective selection criteria or label these as tentative and non-statistical.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The inclination for NGC 0685 is listed as 23.0 +/- 43.4 degrees, which has an uncertainty larger than the value itself; this is likely a typographical error and should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] The virial parameters have no propagated uncertainties even though they depend on R_EVF and M_CO, and the text notes that R_EVF may be an upper limit for unresolved features; please either propagate the errors or state explicitly that they are not propagated.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The factor eta = sqrt(2 ln 2) = 1.18 is described as the half width at half maximum of a two-dimensional Gaussian; for a Gaussian with unequal sigma_x and sigma_y, this effective radius definition assumes a particular ellipticity, and the text should clarify this assumption.
  4. [Section 3.3] There is a typo in 'latitude unresricted', and the difference between the double-Gaussian Milky Way analysis and the single-Gaussian external analysis should be checked quantitatively before comparing the two samples in Fig. 7.
  5. [Section 4 and Section 4.2] The text mentions 'approximately 12 of the EVF regions' being resolved into clumps in 7.7 micron emission, while the later stream census gives 9 with streams, 5 undetermined, and 4 without; please define the clump statistic clearly so that the two numbers are not confusing.
  6. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption for the NGC 3627 spectra repeats the same description four times; the caption should be streamlined to match the panels actually shown.
  7. [Table 3 and Section 4] The unbarred control sample is not matched in distance, physical resolution, or inclination to the barred sample; please discuss how these differences might affect the conclusion that EVFs are generally absent in unbarred galaxies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Virial-parameter evidence for collisions is partly circular: EVFs are selected as unusually broad-lined, and alpha_vir is computed from that same line width, which the paper's own collision model treats as a bulk velocity difference.

  1. self definitional [Sect. 3.1 (EVF identification), Sect. 3.2 (Eqs. 4-5), Sect. 4.1 (interpretation)]
    "We then visually select the EVFs within the extracted dust lanes by looking in the PV maps for features that are abnormally broad-lined compared to the rest of the material on the dust lane... The standard deviation sigma_v of the fit is taken as a measure of the velocity dispersion... Following Bertoldi & McKee (1992) and Rosolowsky et al. (2021), we calculate the virial masses and virial parameters as: Mvir = 5 sigma_v^2 REVF/G, alpha_vir = 2 Mvir/MCO."

    EVFs are selected as abnormally broad-lined, and alpha_vir is then computed from exactly that same single-Gaussian sigma_v. In the collision interpretation the paper itself concedes (Sect. 4.1) that 'their velocity extent may be dictated by the velocity difference between the colliding clouds' and that the dispersion is 'likely not driven by isotropic velocity dispersion.' If sigma_v measures a bulk velocity difference between unresolved streams rather than internal random motion, then alpha_vir ~ 100-3000 is not an independent equilibrium diagnostic; it is largely a restatement of the broad-line selection criterion. Thus the claim 'strongly out-of-equilibrium' is partly self-definitional, although the JWST stream morphology provides separate, non-circular support.

full rationale

The main empirical content of the paper—the identification of 18 EVF-like features in 10 of 29 barred galaxies and their general absence in unbarred controls—is a catalog based on PP/PV maps and is not circular. The circularity enters at one specific interpretive step: the same line width that defines an EVF is inserted into the standard virial formula, and the resulting alpha_vir is cited as evidence for extreme out-of-equilibrium cloud collisions. Since the paper's own collision scenario interprets the velocity extent as the relative velocity of colliding clouds, the high alpha_vir is in part a definitional consequence of selecting broad-line regions, not an independent dynamical test. This is partially mitigated by the paper's explicit caveat about the isotropy assumption and by independent morphological evidence from PHANGS-JWST 7.7 micron images and Milky Way analogues. No fitting-to-prediction substitution or uniqueness-theorem self-citation chain was found; the citations to Sormani et al. (2019) are prior numerical work rather than a circular input. The score reflects a partial, not total, circularity: the catalog and morphological support stand, but the virial-parameter argument cannot independently carry the collision interpretation as presented.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard virial formalism, a fixed CO conversion factor, visual classification of dust lanes and EVFs, and a morphological interpretation of JWST streams. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential assumptions are that each broad-line aperture behaves as a single cloud with isotropic dispersion (weakened by the paper's own caveat in Sect. 4.1) and that alpha_CO is constant; both affect the magnitude of the reported virial parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor alpha_CO(2-1) = 6.69 M_sun pc^-2 (K km/s)^-1
    Adopted from Bolatto et al. 2013 Galactic value with a fixed 0.70 line ratio (Leroy et al. 2022); used in Eq. (3) to convert integrated CO intensity to mass, directly scaling all M_CO and hence alpha_vir values. The authors note it ignores galaxy-scale variations and may overestimate masses of high-dispersion features.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Virial mass formula M_vir = 5 sigma_v^2 R_EVF / G and alpha_vir = 2 M_vir / M_CO apply to the observed regions.
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(5) of Sect. 3.2 to infer that EVFs are out of equilibrium. The formula assumes a spherical, self-gravitating, virialized cloud; the paper does not verify this assumption for EVFs.
  • ad hoc to paper Single Gaussian fit to the total spectrum of each EVF region adequately represents its velocity structure.
    Adopted in Sect. 3.2; the paper notes the intensity distribution may be non-Gaussian and contaminated, and for the Milky Way a double Gaussian is needed (Sect. 3.3).
  • domain assumption The CO(2-1)-to-H2 conversion factor is constant at alpha_CO = 6.69 M_sun pc^-2 (K km/s)^-1 for all galaxies.
    Used in Eq. (3); based on Bolatto et al. 2013 with a fixed 0.70 line ratio. The paper acknowledges it ignores galaxy-scale variations (citing den Brok et al. 2025) and may overestimate masses of high-dispersion features.
  • domain assumption Dust lanes identified visually in CO(2-1) PP maps are the correct locations to search for EVFs and correspond to the Galactic bar lanes.
    Sect. 3.1 defines EVFs as features on dust lanes; the identification is visual and uses contours drawn in glue.
  • domain assumption 7.7 micron PAH emission traces the molecular gas column, and the faint streams seen in JWST images are physically associated with the EVFs.
    Sect. 2.2 and Sect. 4.2 interpret morphologically apparent streams as overshot gas hitting dust lanes; JWST has no velocity information, so the association is not kinematically confirmed.
  • domain assumption The MW EVFs are analogues of the external EVFs and the Sormani et al. 2019 simulations are a valid model for their origin.
    Used throughout Sects. 1, 4 and 5 to transfer the collision interpretation from simulations and MW observations to external galaxies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme cloud collisions in nearby barred galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3LMAFMT

@misc{pith2026250704530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme cloud collisions in nearby barred galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3LMAFMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04530}
}
read the original abstract

The inner regions of the Milky Way are known to contain an enigmatic population of prominent molecular clouds characterised by extremely broad lines. The physical origin of these ''extended velocity features'' (EVFs) is still debated, although a connection with the ''dust lanes'' of the Galactic bar has been hypothesised. In this paper, we search for analogous features in the dust lanes of nearby barred galaxies using the PHANGS-ALMA CO(2-1) survey. We aim to confirm existence of EVFs in other galaxies and to take advantage of the external perspective to gain insight into their origin. We study a sample of 29 barred galaxies and find that 34% contain one or more EVFs, while the remaining lack obvious signs of EVFs. Upon analysing the physical properties of the EVFs, we find they possess large virial parameters, ranging from few hundreds to several thousand, indicating that they are strongly out-of-equilibrium. The most likely explanation for their origin is extreme cloud-cloud collisions with relative velocities in excess of 100km/s in highly non-circular flow driven by the bar. This interpretation is consistent with previous high-resolution observations in Milky Way. Further corroboration of this interpretation comes from the inspection of high-sensitivity infrared observations from the PHANGS-JWST Treasury Survey that reveals streams of gas that appear to be hitting the dust lanes at locations where EVFs are found. We argue that EVFs are the clearest examples of cloud-cloud collisions available in literature and represent a unique opportunity to study cloud collisions and their impact on star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CO(1-0) emission maps of the central regions of the Milky Way. The top and bottom panels display the longitude-latitude (l, b) and longitude-velocity (l, vlos) CO(1-0) emission maps respectively from the survey by Bitran et al. (1997). The two most prominent EVFs of the Galaxy, located at l = 5.4 ◦ and l = 3.2 ◦, are marked with magenta boxes and are coloured in indigo and green respectively. Red and blue are the em… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The diagnostic maps and 7.7µm emission image of NGC 1300. Top: Position-position (PP) and Position-velocity (PV) diagrams. The galaxy is rotated in the plane of the sky such that the PA of the LON aligns with the x-axis. Red and blue colours highlight the dust lanes. Bottom: 7.7µm emission in gray-scale, with CO(2–1) intensity as in PP diagram in yellow contours. Magenta lines mark the streams that appear to extend … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Close-up views of the EVF regions, marked with rectangular boxes in the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The CO(2–1) spectra within the regions enclosed within rectangular boxes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectra (black full curves) and double Gaussian fits (dashed curves) for two MW EVFs highlighted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Physical properties of EVFs plotted against the radius from the galaxy center (left) and the physical radius of the EVF (right). From top to bottom: velocity extent ∆v, mass MCO, virial parameter αvir. Each point is numbered according to the assigned EVF index listed i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of ∆v against sin(i) (left) and the distribution of ∆v/sin(i) against the difference of PA of the LON and PA of the bar (right). The points are numbered according to galaxy and EVF index, as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3621A 501, 3621

    Anand G. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3621A 501, 3621

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3668 2021

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    Athanassoula E., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.259..345A 259, 345

    doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  5. [5]

    R., Wada K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/62.6.1413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASJ...62.1413B 62, 1413

    Baba J., Saitoh T. R., Wada K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/62.6.1413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASJ...62.1413B 62, 1413

    doi:10.1093/pasj/62.6.1413 2010

  6. [6]

    R., Rosolowsky E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Beaumont C., Goodman A., Greenfield P., 2015, in Taylor A. R., Rosolowsky E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 495, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV). p. 101

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    F., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..140B 395, 140

    Bertoldi F., McKee C. F., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..140B 395, 140

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  8. [8]

    Bitran M., Alvarez H., Bronfman L., May J., Thaddeus P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1997214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&AS..125...99B 125, 99

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1997214 1997

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    D., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Leroy A. K., Rosolowsky E., Walter F., Blitz L., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..948B 686, 948

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Wolfire M., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..207B 51, 207

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Cohen R

    Boyce P. J., Cohen R. J., Dent W. R. F., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/239.3.1013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.239.1013B 239, 1013

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Riquelme D., G \"u sten R., Menten K

    Busch L. A., Riquelme D., G \"u sten R., Menten K. M., Pillai T. G. S., Kauffmann J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.183B 668, A183

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..217...32B 217, 32

    Buta R. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..217...32B 217, 32

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Enokiya R., Torii K., Fukui Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psz119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASJ...73S..75E 73, S75

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Fragkoudi F., Athanassoula E., Bosma A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462L..41F 462, L41

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Freeman P., Rosolowsky E., Kruijssen J. M. D., Bastian N., Adamo A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1769F 468, 1769

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Fujishita M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.5.1039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASJ...61.1039F 61, 1039

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Fukui Y., et al., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1130425 , 314, 106

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    Fux R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...345..787F 345, 787

    1999 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    R., Ginsburg A., Meier D

    Gramze S. R., Ginsburg A., Meier D. S., Ott J., Shirley Y., Sormani M. C., Svoboda B. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad01be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...93G 959, 93

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Barnes A

    Henshaw J. D., Barnes A. T., Battersby C., Ginsburg A., Sormani M. C., Walker D. L., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 83 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.1122...

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Herrera-Endoqui M., D \' az-Garc \' a S., Laurikainen E., Salo H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...582A..86H 582, A86

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Kumar P., Riffert H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.4.871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..871K 292, 871

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Lang P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..122L 897, 122

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Lee H

    Lee C. W., Lee H. M., Ann H. B., Kwon K. H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..242L 513, 242

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L..17L 944, L17

    Lee J. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L..17L 944, L17

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    K., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...19L 255, 19

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...19L 255, 19

    doi

  20. [29]

    K., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...43L 257, 43

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...43L 257, 43

    doi

  21. [30]

    K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..149L 927, 149

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..149L 927, 149

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L...9L 944, L9

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L...9L 944, L9

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Li A., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1051-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..339L 4, 339

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...447..533L 447, 533

    Liszt H. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...447..533L 447, 533

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..467L 486, 467

    Liszt H. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..467L 486, 467

    2008 doi

  26. [35]

    Maeda F., Ohta K., Egusa F., Fujimoto Y., Kobayashi M. I. N., Inoue S., Habe A., 2025, Galactic structure dependence of cloud-cloud collisions driven star formation in the barred galaxy NGC 3627 ( @eprint arXiv 2502.06102 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06102

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    N., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..811P 145, 811

    Parker E. N., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..811P 145, 811

    1966 doi

  28. [37]

    G., Stone J

    Piner B. G., Stone J. M., Teuben P. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..508P 449, 508

    1995 doi

  29. [38]

    Robitaille T., Beaumont C., Qian P., Borkin M., Goodman A., 2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Rosolowsky E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1218R 502, 1218

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    Salo H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219....4S 219, 4

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62..369S 62, 369

    Schinnerer E., Leroy A. K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62..369S 62, 369

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Smith J. D. T., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...656..770S 656, 770

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4663S 488, 4663

    Sormani M. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4663S 488, 4663

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Bania T

    Stark A. A., Bania T. M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306L..17S 306, L17

    1986 doi

  36. [45]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.113S 676, A113

    Stuber S. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.113S 676, A113

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    K., Fukui Y., Torii K., Machida M., Matsumoto R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3049S 454, 3049

    Suzuki T. K., Fukui Y., Torii K., Machida M., Matsumoto R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3049S 454, 3049

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    Teng Y.-H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accb86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..119T 950, 119

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    Torii K., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/62.5.1307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASJ...62.1307T 62, 1307

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.15142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240115142W p

    Williams T. G., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.15142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240115142W p. arXiv:2401.15142

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Jr. H. G., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  42. [51]

    den Brok J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad888a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169...18D 169, 18

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.