Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The EDGE-CALIFA survey: Star formation relationships for galaxies at different stages of their evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper argues that star formation quenching requires a collapse in star formation efficiency in galactic centres, not molecular gas depletion alone, based on 643 CALIFA galaxies with CO data.

desk verdict Solid stage-resolved study with a strong central claim that is undercut by low CO detection rates in the retired groups. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06406 v1 pith:OX62HO5U submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.GA

D. Colombo , V. Kalinova , Z. Bazzi , S. F. Sanchez , A. D. Bolatto , T. Wong , V. Villanueva , E. Rosolowsky
show 8 more authors
A. Wei{ss} K. D. French A. Leroy J. Barrera-Ballesteros Y. Garay-Solis F. Bigiel A. Tripathi B. Rodriguez
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyevolutionstarformationquenchingmoleculargasefficiencyscalingrelationsCALIFAsurveyCOobservationsemission-lineclassification
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 why galaxies stop forming stars, and specifically whether quenching is a problem of running out of molecular gas or of failing to use the gas that remains. Using 643 nearby galaxies from the CALIFA survey combined with CO observations in the iEDGE database, the authors sort galaxies into six quenching stages by the spatial pattern of ionised gas. They find that the molecular gas fraction falls steadily from star-forming to retired galaxies, but the star formation efficiency stays roughly constant through the first stages and then drops sharply for nearly and fully retired galaxies. The efficiency drop is much larger in galactic centres than in the discs, meaning quenching proceeds inside-out. The paper concludes that depleting the molecular gas alone cannot retire a galaxy; beyond the green valley, the centres must also lose the ability to convert their remaining gas into stars.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the QueStNA emission-line classification, which assigns each galaxy a quenching stage from the spatial pattern of H-$\alpha$ equivalent width ($W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} > 6$ \AA{} marking star-forming regions, $W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} < 3$ \AA{} marking retired regions, and the range between them marking mixed ionisation), together with the iEDGE homogenised database of CO(1-0) and CO(2-1) fluxes and CALIFA optical maps. Beam quantities measured within the 26.3-arcsec APEX beam, which has a median size of about one effective radius, are compared with global quantities to isolate central behaviour. The quantitative analysis is carried by Bayesian linear regressions that treat CO non-detections as upper limits, flaring plots that compare each stage's median to the star-forming median, two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and principal component analysis eigenvalue ratios that diagnose whether a three-dimensional relation is line-like.

What would settle it

Resolve the central half effective radius of nearly and fully retired galaxies in sensitive CO observations: if their central molecular gas is detected and forms stars at normal efficiencies, the claimed central efficiency collapse would disappear; if the central SFE deficit persists at sub-kiloparsec resolution, the inside-out quenching claim would be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that star formation quenching is a two-stage process: a steady loss of molecular gas relative to stellar mass brings galaxies from the star-forming sequence into the green valley, and then a collapse in star formation efficiency, most pronounced in the central regions, carries them into retirement. The evidence includes median star formation efficiencies that are nearly constant for the star-forming, quiescent-nuclear-ring, and centrally quenched stages, then fall by factors of 20 to 30 for the nearly retired and fully retired stages. The molecular gas--stellar mass relation flattens from a slope near 1.08 for star-forming galaxies to about 0.57 for fully retired galaxies, while the star formation rate--molecular gas relation steepens from about 0.79 to values above 2 as the intercept drops, so retired galaxies sit at much lower efficiency for a given gas mass. Principal component analysis shows a line-like three-dimensional relation among star formation rate, stellar mass, and molecular gas mass only for the star-forming group, with the other stages scattered in that space. Taken together, the paper argues that a significant decrease in star formation efficiency is necessary to retire the centres of galaxies beyond the star formation green valley.

Load-bearing premise

The retired-stage conclusions depend on treating CO non-detections as upper limits and on taking the 26.3-arcsec beam, roughly one effective radius, as the galaxy centre while the quenching classification defines the centre within half an effective radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The molecular gas fraction $f_{\rm mol}$ declines continuously across quenching stages, so gas removal is real and matters, but it is not the whole story.
  • Star formation efficiency is flat from the star-forming stage through the centrally quenched and quiescent-nuclear-ring stages, with the onset of the efficiency loss occurring at the green-valley (mixed) stage.
  • Central star formation efficiency in nearly and fully retired galaxies drops by more than two orders of magnitude relative to the star-forming stage, while the global drop is about one order of magnitude, so the centre leads the quenching.
  • The scaling relations change systematically: the SFR--$M_{\rm mol}$ slope steepens from about 0.79 to 2.11, while the $M_{\rm mol}$--$M_*$ slope flattens from about 1.08 to 0.57, implying retired galaxies are gas-poor relative to their stellar mass and inefficient at using the gas they retain.
  • Only star-forming galaxies show a line-like three-dimensional relation among SFR, $M_*$, and $M_{\rm mol}$; the other quenching stages scatter in that parameter space, so stage-specific scaling relations are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim is confirmed, galaxy evolution models should treat quenching as requiring an efficiency-reduction channel rather than gas exhaustion alone; prescriptions that only remove gas will struggle to reproduce the red sequence.
  • The result implies that CO surveys of green-valley and retired galaxies should prioritise sensitivity to low-surface-brightness molecular gas, since non-detections currently dominate the fully retired stage and the fitted relations depend on how those upper limits are treated.
  • The inside-out efficiency drop is consistent with dynamical suppression or loss of the feedback support that sustains star formation in dense centres, and a direct test would compare central turbulence, shear, and molecular-cloud properties in retired galaxies at sub-kiloparsec resolution.
  • Because active galactic nuclei were excluded from the analysis, the central efficiency collapse in this sample cannot be attributed to instantaneous AGN feedback, pointing instead to long-term preventative or dynamical mechanisms operating after gas depletion begins.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the iEDGE database (643 CALIFA galaxies with CO data from APEX, CARMA, and ACA) to classify galaxies into six QueStNA quenching stages on the basis of WHα maps and BPT diagnostics, then compares sSFR, Mmol, SFE, and fmol across stages, both globally and in the central ('beam') regions. The main results are that SFE is roughly constant for the SF, QnR, and cQ stages and declines for MX, nR, and fR; that this decline is more pronounced in the centre than globally; that the Mmol-M* relations become shallower and the SFR-Mmol relations steeper with quenching; and that a 3D SFR-M*-Mmol relation exists only for the SF group. The paper concludes that quenching beyond the green valley cannot be explained by molecular gas depletion alone and requires a significant SFE decrease, particularly in galaxy centres.

Significance. If established, the result that molecular gas remains present but is used with reduced efficiency in the centres of retired galaxies would be an important constraint on quenching mechanisms, favoring efficiency-drop scenarios over pure gas exhaustion and supporting inside-out quenching. The paper has real strengths: a large homogenized multi-telescope sample, explicit automatic classification quality flags, linmix regressions that treat upper limits, 2D KS tests, and stacked CO spectra that do not depend on SFR calibration assumptions. However, the central claim rests on the retired-stage SFE measurements, which are the least secure part of the dataset; the paper itself concedes in §4.1 that the retired-stage scaling relations may be driven by upper limits, and that same caveat extends to the SFE drop that carries the abstract's conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 / Fig. 7 and §4.2 / Fig. 13] The central claim that a significant SFE decrease is necessary to quench galaxy centres is carried by the flaring plots, which use only CO-detected galaxies (S/N>3). In the retired stages the detection fraction is low: 54% for nR and 27% for fR (Table 1). Because nR and fR are selected to have uniformly low Hα-based SFR, the detected subsample is biased toward the highest Mmol at a given low SFR; if the true SFE were constant, this selection would mechanically lower the measured median SFE = SFR/Mmol. The paper itself states in §4.1 that the retired-group relations can be driven by upper limits and that it cannot fully establish with this sample that retired KS laws actually exist, and this caveat applies equally to the SFE drop that supports the abstract's conclusion. The authors should add a quantitative upper-limit-aware analysis—for example survival-analysis medians for Table 2, linmix full-sample predictions evaluated at the group medians, or an injection test that assigns non-detections SF-like SFE and re-derives the flaring ratios—and show that the beam SFE decline survives.
  2. [§3.3 / §4.2 and Section 2] The 'centre' used in the inside-out quenching claim is not the same aperture as the QueStNA central classification. The cQ and QnR stages are defined by WHα patterns within 0.5 Re (K21; Appendix A), and §4.2 discusses quenching within 0.5 Reff. The beam measurements, however, are the APEX 26.3'' FWHM CO aperture, which the authors themselves state corresponds to a median of 1 Re (Section 2). For a typical galaxy, a 1-Re aperture includes a substantial part of the disc, so the beam SFE decrement may be diluted relative to the true central value or may reflect processes at a different radius than the 0.5-Re 'centre' invoked in the abstract. The quantitative inside-out comparison should either use an aperture-matched central definition or explicitly quantify the Re distribution and the fraction of the beam that lies within 0.5 Re for the galaxies in each stage.
  3. [§3.4 / Table 3 and §4.1] The reported steepening of the SFR-Mmol relation with quenching rests on linmix fits for groups in which non-detections dominate: the nR slope is 2.11 with a fitted range of roughly 1.94-2.32 and the fR slope is 1.58 with a fitted range of roughly 1.47-1.71, but the Spearman coefficients for detections-only samples are 0.49 and 0.43, and the fitted relations are explicitly acknowledged in §4.1 to be possibly driven by upper limits. As the paper says, retired KS laws cannot be established. Since the abstract presents the steepening as one of the main findings, the authors should either soften the claim to 'consistent with, but not conclusive of, steepening' or perform a sensitivity test that fits all stages using a common S/N or Mmol completeness threshold, so that the slope comparison is not confounded by the very different detection fractions across stages.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including 'K21]kalinova2021' (several occurrences), 'e fficient' and 'efficiency' inconsistencies, 'redshit' for 'redshift', and 'Quantities (expect rP and rS)' in the Table 3 notes, which should be 'except'.
  2. [§3.3 and Fig. 7] The text refers to 'Fig. 7 left and middle panels' but the figure as presented has two panels (global and beam); also the Fig. 7 caption labels the star formation efficiency line as 'SFR, cyan' instead of 'SFE, cyan'.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Section 2] The APEX beam size is given as 26.2'' in the Fig. 1 caption and 26.3'' in Section 2; these values should be harmonized.
  4. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract states that a significant SFE decrease is 'necessary' to retire galaxy centres, while §4.1 explicitly says the retired-stage relations may be driven by upper limits and that retired KS laws cannot be fully established; the abstract should be tempered to match this caveat.
  5. [§4.3] The sentence claiming that excluding active galaxies allows the authors to 'rule out AGN-driven gas depletion as the primary mechanism for quenching in our sample' is too strong, since BPT-based AGN selection can miss diluted or previously active nuclei; the subsequent qualifying discussion is appropriate, but the strong wording should be revised.
  6. [Fig. 4] The stacked CO spectra are a valuable non-model-dependent check, but no error bars or quantitative significance tests are provided for the amplitude differences between stages or between active and non-active subsamples; adding these would strengthen the AGN gas-retention point.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the sSFR decline is built into the WHα-based stage definitions, and the central central-SFE drop is vulnerable to CO-detection selection in low-detection retired classes.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (QueStNA definition) and Section 3.2 (sSFR distributions)]
    "objects completely retired with WHα < 3 Å everywhere within 2 Re, thus 'fully retired' (fR) ... The trend of the averages is clearly descending across the quenching stages."

    The Quenching stages are defined by WHα thresholds, and the SFR maps are derived from Hα. WHα is an Hα equivalent width, i.e., Hα per unit stellar continuum, which is a direct proxy for specific star formation rate. Therefore the monotonic decrease in sSFR from SF to fR is largely a restatement of the classification criteria rather than an independent empirical result. This definitional coupling does not by itself force the SFE trend, because SFE involves the independent CO-based Mmol, but it makes the sSFR part of the paper's evidence partly tautological.

  2. other [Section 3.3 (flaring plots) and Section 4.1 (limitation statement); detection rates in Table 3.1 and Fig. 5]
    "To avoid systemic biases introduced by Mmol upper limits, we will use only CO-detected galaxies. ... the retired groups are largely influenced by non-detections (in particular, the fR stage is dominated by them) and the relationships we measured can be driven by upper limits."

    The central inside-out SFE-drop conclusion is based on flaring plots computed from CO detections only, while the retired classes have low detection rates (nR 46/79, fR 20/73 in Table 3.1). Since SFE = SFR/Mmol, restricting to detections selects galaxies with the highest Mmol at a given low SFR, mechanically lowering the measured SFE of the retired classes. The paper itself concedes that retired-group relations 'can be driven by upper limits' and that 'retired KS laws' cannot be fully established, so the headline claim that a significant SFE decrease is necessary is not independent of the censoring/detection rule used to estimate it.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in its entirety: the molecular gas mass, molecular-to-stellar mass ratio, and the Mmol-based scaling relations are derived from independent CO observations and are not fixed by the WHα-based QueStNA classification. However, two parts of the argument are coupled to the inputs by construction or by selection. First, the steep decline of sSFR across quenching stages is close to definitional, because the stages are defined by Hα equivalent-width thresholds and sSFR is measured from Hα. Second, the central claim that retired galactic centres require a large SFE decrease relies on flaring plots that use CO detections only; for nR and especially fR, the low detection rate biases the detected subsample toward high Mmol at fixed SFR, which lowers SFE = SFR/Mmol. The paper's own §4.1 acknowledges that the retired-group relations and detections are strongly influenced by upper limits, weakening the independence of the headline conclusion. The self-citations (K21, Colombo et al. 2020/2025, Sánchez et al. 2021) are used for classification, data, and context, but no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the analysis, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way. Overall score 4 reflects partial definitional/selection coupling in the central interpretive claim while the Mmol-based relations retain substantial independent content.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. The scaling relation slopes are descriptive fits rather than model inputs. The central claim rests on external calibrations for alpha_CO and R21, on the QueStNA classification assumption, on the upper-limit treatment, and on the aperture choice for the 'centre'.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Halpha equivalent width thresholds of 3 and 6 Angstrom separate gas ionized by young stars, diffuse processes, and old stellar populations, so QueStNA stages form a meaningful quenching sequence.
    Section 1 and Kalinova et al. 2021. The entire stage framework, and therefore the interpretation of SFE trends across stages, depends on this classification being a genuine evolutionary ordering.
  • domain assumption CO(2-1) to CO(1-0) conversion follows the R21 relation with SFR surface density from den Brok et al. 2023, and the CO-to-H2 conversion uses the Bolatto et al. 2013 alpha_CO prescription based on metallicity and stellar mass surface density.
    Section 2. Mmol enters SFE, fmol, and every scaling relation, so systematic errors in these external calibrations propagate directly into the central claim.
  • domain assumption SFR derived from Halpha Balmer decrement maps and stellar mass from PIPE3D SSP fits are reliable for all quenching stages.
    Section 2. SFR defines SFE and the 3D relations; a systematic underestimation of SFR in retired galaxies would mimic an SFE drop.
  • domain assumption CO non-detections in the nR and fR groups are correctly modeled as upper limits by linmix, yielding unbiased scaling relation slopes and SFE values.
    Section 3.4. Retired groups are dominated by non-detections, and the paper itself states that the relations cannot be fully established without deeper CO data.
  • domain assumption The 26.3 arcsec APEX beam, corresponding to a median of about 1 Re, measures the galaxy 'centre' relevant to inside-out quenching.
    Sections 2 and 3.3. QueStNA defines central quenching within 0.5 Re, so the beam aperture and the classification center are not on the same physical scale.
  • domain assumption The combined iEDGE sample is representative enough across quenching stages for the median trends and scaling relation comparisons.
    Section 2 and Fig. 2. CARMA and ACA target infrared-bright, mostly star-forming galaxies, while APEX covers the green valley and red sequence; low-mass retired galaxies are under-represented, so mass effects could masquerade as stage effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The EDGE-CALIFA survey: Star formation relationships for galaxies at different stages of their evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OX62HO5U

@misc{pith2026250706406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The EDGE-CALIFA survey: Star formation relationships for galaxies at different stages of their evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OX62HO5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06406}
}
abstract

Galaxy evolution is largely driven by star formation activity or by the cessation of it, also called star formation quenching. In this paper, we present star formation scaling relations for galaxies at different evolutionary stages. To do so, we used the integrated Extragalactic Database for Galaxy Evolution (iEDGE), which collects CO, optical continuum, and emission line information for 643 galaxies from the CALIFA IFU dataset. By considering the patterns described by star-forming and retired regions, we grouped the galaxies into quenching stages using the emission line classification scheme, QueStNA. We observed that the molecular gas mass ($M_{\rm mol}$) decreases from star-forming to retired systems and so does the molecular-to-stellar mass ratio ($f_{\rm mol}$). In contrast, star formation efficiency (SFE) is constant in the quenching stages dominated by star formation and rapidly declines afterwards. We observed that this rapid decline is more pronounced in the centre of the galaxies compared to the rest of the discs, reflecting the inside-out quenching displayed by nearby galaxies. We noticed that the relations between $M_{\rm mol}$ and the stellar mass ($M_*$) become increasingly shallow with the quenching stages; however, the relations between the star formation rate (SFR) and $M_{\rm mol}$ steepen when going from star-forming to retired systems. We observed that a three-dimensional relation between SFR, $M_*$, and $M_{\rm mol}$ exists for star-forming galaxies, while data points from other quenching groups are scattered across the parameter space. Taken together, these pieces of evidence indicate that the quenching of the galaxies cannot be explained solely by a depletion of the molecular gas and that a significant decrease in the SFE is necessary to retire the centre of the galaxies beyond the star formation green valley.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06406 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From top to bottom: Examples of galaxies at different ‘quenching stages’. First column: Continuum RGB images extracted from the CALIFA datacubes using u− (blue), g− (green), and r− (red) bands. In the title, the galaxy name is given. Second column: Discrete WHα maps. Here, blue indicates the region dominated by star formation, yellow shows diffuse gas regions, and red displays quenched regions (see text for more det… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of SFR-M∗ showcasing the coverage of iEDGE com￾pared to CALIFA. The full CALIFA sample is shown with blue hexagons, while yellow circles indicate galaxies included in iEDGE. Additionally, red circle marks CO-detected (with S/N>3) objects in iEDGE. The solid black line in both panels represents the SFMS model from Cano-Díaz et al. (2016), with dotted lines showing uncertainties. The dashed purple line marks t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentage of spaxels dominated by star formation (blue), by diffuse gas (yellow), or quenched (red) across non-active galaxies at a given quenching stage. The number of spaxels is calculated with 2 Re where QueStNA classification is defined. Crossing the green valley (roughly spanned by the MX group), retired regions become dominant over the star-forming regions. compared to wAGN-host. Generally, the highest number… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra of CO(2-1) from APEX observations only stacked by quenching stages. In the left panel, only non-active galaxies are considered, while in the right panel, only active (wAGN and sAGN) galaxies are used. The peak of the spectra decreases from SF to fR galaxies. Ho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Violin plot representations of sSFR, Mmol, SFE, and fmol of the observed iEDGE galaxies grouped into quenching stages. Horizontal dashed lines show the sample medians, while the white circle indicates the medians for each quenching stage. Transparent violins show the d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: P-value matrices from the two-sided Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for star formation fundamental quantities from galaxies at different quench￾ing stages. Global properties considered here are (from left to right): specific star formation rate (sSFR), molecular gas mass (Mmol…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ‘Flaring’ plots (see text for additional details) of several quantities related to the star formation process (star formation rate, SFR, green; stellar mass, M∗, purple; molecular gas mass, Mmol, orange; specific star formation rate, sSFR, red; star formation efficienc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diagram of SFR-M∗ from the iEDGE in different representations. Upper left: Individual data points are drawn with markers that reflect the WHα bi-dimensional distribution across the galaxy disc. Here, blue shows regions where WHα > 6 Å, while red shows regions where WHα…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagram of SFR-Mmol from the iEDGE in different representations. Symbols and conventions follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Diagram of Mmol − M∗ from the iEDGE in different representations. Symbols and conventions follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: P-value matrices from the two-sided bi-dimensional Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for star formation-related scaling relations from galaxies at different quenching stages. Symbols and conventions follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-dimensional star formation scaling relations involving star formation rate (SFR), stellar mass (M∗), and molecular gas mass (Mmol). Different colours indicate galaxies at given quenching stages. Additionally, for each group, the confidence ellipsoids and the dir…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ALMA CO-CAVITY II. Resolved Scaling Relations in Void Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In void galaxies, the resolved relation between molecular gas and stellar mass is the tightest of the three star-formation scaling relations, with 0.16 dex scatter.

  2. Vz-GAL Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies: Revisiting the CO-H2 Conversion Factor Tension

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The CO-to-H2 conversion factor in high-z dusty star-forming galaxies is not required to be 0.8; intermediate to near-Galactic values (median ~4-5) remain dynamically viable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947 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

    1999

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345 6 http://www.astropy.org

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345 6 http://www.astropy.org

    1992

  3. [3]

    M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A

    Baker, W. M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3622

    2022

  4. [4]

    K., Balogh, M

    Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 373, 469

    2006

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    1981

  6. [6]

    L., Navarro, J

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

    2000

  7. [7]

    K., Cruz-González, I., Colombo, D., et al

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Cruz-González, I., Colombo, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 23

    2025

  8. [8]

    K., Heckman, T., Sánchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Heckman, T., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 131

    2021

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    K., Utomo, D., Bolatto, A

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Utomo, D., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2651

    2020

  2. [10]

    2025, A&A, in press

    Bazzi, Z., Colombo, D., & Bigiel, F. 2025, A&A, in press

    2025

  3. [11]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3068

    2024

  4. [12]

    & Teyssier, R

    Biernacki, P. & Teyssier, R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5688

    2018

  5. [13]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    2008

  6. [14]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  7. [15]

    & Dekel, A

    Birnboim, Y . & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349

    2003

  8. [16]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Bottrell, C., Teimoorinia, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 666

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Mendel, J. T., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 599

    2014

  10. [18]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Piotrowska, J. M., & Maiolino, R. 2023, ApJ, 944, 108

    2023

  11. [19]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

    2013

  12. [20]

    D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al

    Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 159

    2017

  13. [21]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 Cano-Díaz, M., Sánchez, S. F., Zibetti, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, L26

    2004

  14. [22]

    L., et al

    Cheung, E., Athanassoula, E., Masters, K. L., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 162

    2013

  15. [23]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872

    2020

  16. [24]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1261 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., Schlickmann, M

    Chown, R., Li, C., Parker, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1261 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1036

    2021

  17. [25]

    2018, A&A, 620, A21

    Colling, C., Hennebelle, P., Geen, S., Iffrig, O., & Bournaud, F. 2018, A&A, 620, A21

    2018

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    2014

  19. [27]

    2025, A&A, submitted

    Colombo, D., Kalinova, V ., & Bazzi, Z. 2025, A&A, submitted

    2025

  20. [28]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1791

    Colombo, D., Kalinova, V ., Utomo, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1791

    2018

  21. [29]

    F., Bolatto, A

    Colombo, D., Sanchez, S. F., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A97

    2020

  22. [30]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 156

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156

    2007

  23. [31]

    A., Young, L

    Davis, T. A., Young, L. M., Crocker, A. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3427 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275 den Brok, J. S., Bigiel, F., Sliwa, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A89 den Brok, J. S., Leroy, A. K., Usero, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6347

    2014

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1926

    Dey, B., Rosolowsky, E., Cao, Y ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1926

    2019

  25. [33]

    & Baba, J

    Dobbs, C. & Baba, J. 2014, PASA, 31, e035

    2014

  26. [34]

    S., et al

    Duarte-Cabral, A., Colombo, D., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3027

    2021

  27. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    Dubois, Y ., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    2016

  28. [36]

    L., Lin, L., Thorp, M

    Ellison, S. L., Lin, L., Thorp, M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L6

    2021

  29. [37]

    L., Pan, H.-A., Bluck, A

    Ellison, S. L., Pan, H.-A., Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10201

    2024

  30. [38]

    L., Thorp, M

    Ellison, S. L., Thorp, M. D., Lin, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L39

    2020

  31. [39]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107

    Enia, A., Rodighiero, G., Morselli, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4107

    2020

  32. [40]

    M., Willmer, C

    Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

    2007

  33. [41]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  34. [42]

    & Franceschini, A

    Fasano, G. & Franceschini, A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 155

    1987

  35. [43]

    & Peebles, P

    Fukugita, M. & Peebles, P. J. E. 2004, ApJ, 616, 643

    2004

  36. [44]

    & Solomon, P

    Gao, Y . & Solomon, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271

    2004

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 172

    Gao, Y ., Xiao, T., Li, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 172

    2019

  38. [46]

    K., Colombo, D., et al

    Garay-Solis, Y ., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Colombo, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 122

    2023

  39. [47]

    & Kruijssen, J

    Gensior, J. & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2000

    2021

  40. [48]

    Gensior, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Keller, B. W. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 199

    2020

  41. [49]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 20 González Delgado, R. M., Cid Fernandes, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A44

    2015

  42. [50]

    H., Bluck, A

    Goubert, P. H., Bluck, A. F. L., Piotrowska, J. M., & Maiolino, R. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4891

    2024

  43. [51]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

    1972

  44. [52]

    H., Corbelli, E., Schneider, S

    Heyer, M. H., Corbelli, E., Schneider, S. E., & Young, J. S. 2004, ApJ, 602, 723

    2004

  45. [53]

    M., Saintonge, A., Davis, T

    Hogarth, L. M., Saintonge, A., Davis, T. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6768

    2024

  46. [54]

    C., Lin, L., Lin, J

    Hsieh, B. C., Lin, L., Lin, J. H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L24

    2017

  47. [55]

    Hubble, E. P. 1936, Realm of the Nebulae

    1936

  48. [56]

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

    2007

  49. [57]

    & Harrison, C

    Husemann, B. & Harrison, C. M. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 196

    2018

  50. [58]

    F., et al

    Kalinova, V ., Colombo, D., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A64

    2021

  51. [59]

    F., et al

    Kalinova, V ., Colombo, D., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A90

    2022

  52. [60]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33

    2003

  53. [61]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

    2007

  54. [62]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    1998

  55. [63]

    2018, A&A, 609, A60

    Khoperskov, S., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A60

    2018

  56. [64]

    Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 487 Article number, page 19 of 21 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53217-24_arxiv

    2021

  57. [65]

    J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al

    Koss, M. J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 29

    2021

  58. [66]

    Kreckel, K., Faesi, C., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, L21

    2018

  59. [67]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. & Longmore, S. N. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3239

    2014

  60. [68]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1866

    2018

  61. [69]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 739

    2015

  62. [70]

    Lacerda, E. A. D., Cid Fernandes, R., Couto, G. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3727

    2018

  63. [71]

    Lacerda, E. A. D., Sánchez, S. F., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3073

    2020

  64. [72]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

    1980

  65. [73]

    S., Ting, Y .-S., et al

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 165

    2022

  66. [74]

    D., Simon, J

    Leroy, A., Bolatto, A. D., Simon, J. D., & Blitz, L. 2005, ApJ, 625, 763

    2005

  67. [75]

    K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 16

    2016

  68. [76]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 43

    2021

  69. [77]

    K., Usero, A., Schruba, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Usero, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 217

    2017

  70. [78]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782

    2008

  71. [79]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 19

    2013

  72. [80]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al

    Leslie, S. K., Schinnerer, E., Liu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 58

    2020

  73. [81]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 18

    Lin, L., Belfiore, F., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 18

    2017

  74. [82]

    L., Pan, H.-A., et al

    Lin, L., Ellison, S. L., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 175

    2022

  75. [83]

    L., et al

    Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L33

    2019

  76. [84]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 250

    Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 250

    2009

  77. [85]

    L., Nichol, R

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 783

    2010

  78. [86]

    L., Nichol, R

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Hoyle, B., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 2180

    2012

  79. [87]

    E., Leroy, A

    Meidt, S. E., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 100

    2018

  80. [88]

    E., Schinnerer, E., García-Burillo, S., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 45

    2013

  81. [89]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4606

    Morselli, L., Rodighiero, G., Enia, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4606

    2020

  82. [90]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S15

    Muraoka, K., Sorai, K., Miyamoto, Y ., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S15

    2019

  83. [91]

    2002, A&A, 385, 412

    Murgia, M., Crapsi, A., Moscadelli, L., & Gregorini, L. 2002, A&A, 385, 412

    2002

  84. [92]

    F., Guainazzi, M., & Cruz- González, I

    Osorio-Clavijo, N., Gonzalez-Martín, O., Sánchez, S. F., Guainazzi, M., & Cruz- González, I. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5788

    2023

  85. [93]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975

    2010

  86. [94]

    L., et al

    Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07400

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

    Peng, Y ., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192

    2015

  88. [96]

    J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

    Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    2010

  89. [97]

    2021, A&A, 650, A134

    Pessa, I., Schinnerer, E., Belfiore, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A134

    2021

  90. [98]

    K., et al

    Pessa, I., Schinnerer, E., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A61

    2022

  91. [99]

    & Pagel, B

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

    2004

  92. [100]

    M., Bluck, A

    Piotrowska, J. M., Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., Concas, A., & Peng, Y . 2020, MNRAS, 492, L6

    2020

  93. [101]

    M., Bluck, A

    Piotrowska, J. M., Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., & Peng, Y . 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1052

    2022

  94. [102]

    2021, A&A, 656, A133

    Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A133

    2021

  95. [103]

    & Peng, Y .-j

    Renzini, A. & Peng, Y .-j. 2015, ApJ, 801, L29

    2015

  96. [104]

    Rownd, B. K. & Young, J. S. 1999, AJ, 118, 670

    1999

  97. [105]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1749

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1749

    2016

  98. [106]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22

    2017

  99. [107]

    Sanchez, S. F. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.06925 Sánchez, S. F. 2020, ARA&A, 58, annurev Sánchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V ., Hernandez-Toledo, H., et al. 2018, Rev. Mexi- cana Astron. Astrofis., 54, 217 Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Colombo, D., et al. 2021, M...

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    C., Schawinski, K., et al

    Sarzi, M., Shields, J. C., Schawinski, K., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2187

    2010

  101. [109]

    2024, A&A, 687, A255

    Scaloni, L., Rodighiero, G., Enia, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A255

    2024

  102. [110]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 49

    Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 49

    2019

  103. [111]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    1959

  104. [112]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Schruba, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 37

    2011

  105. [113]

    2013, A&A, 558, A43

    Singh, R., van de Ven, G., Jahnke, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A43

    2013

  106. [114]

    M., Downes, D., Radford, S

    Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478, 144

    1997

  107. [115]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3729

    Spinoso, D., Bonoli, S., Dotti, M., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3729

    2017

  108. [116]

    K., Ostriker, E

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, L19

    2023

  109. [117]

    K., Schruba, A., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schruba, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 172

    2018

  110. [118]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179

    2018

  111. [119]

    A., Bell, E

    Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1888

    2020

  112. [120]

    D., Ellison, S

    Thorp, M. D., Ellison, S. L., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1462

    2022

  113. [121]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium

    2005

  114. [122]

    D., Wong, T., et al

    Utomo, D., Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 26

    2017

  115. [123]

    D., V ogel, S

    Villanueva, V ., Bolatto, A. D., V ogel, S. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 88

    2024

  116. [124]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  117. [125]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    2017

  118. [126]

    M., van den Bosch, F

    Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 366, 2

    2006

  119. [127]

    R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E

    Werner, N., McNamara, B. R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 5

    2019

  120. [128]

    & Blitz, L

    Wong, T. & Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ, 569, 157

    2002

  121. [129]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 35

    Wong, T., Cao, Y ., Luo, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 35

    2024

  122. [130]

    D., et al

    Wong, T., Xue, R., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L4

    2013

  123. [131]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 49

    Woo, J.-H., Schulze, A., Park, D., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 49

    2013

  124. [132]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3119

    Wylezalek, D., Cicone, C., Belfiore, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3119

    2022

  125. [133]

    N., et al

    Zakardjian, A., Pety, J., Herrera, C. N., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A171

    2023

  126. [134]

    U”. If only one dia- gram shows the presence of an AGN, the galaxy is classified as nonA, with a quality flag set to “U

    Zinger, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 768 Article number, page 20 of 21 D. Colombo, V . Kalinova, S. Sanchez et al.: Star formation relationships at different galaxy evolution stages Appendix A: Automatic QueStNA classification Following the prescript...

    2020

Pith tools

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